OurColony.net

Rosy Prediction on Prospects for Islamic Democracy

Customer Rating:
Feldman propounds a solution to a crucial problem of U.S. policy toward the Middle East: the fact that almost all the Arab regimes we support have scant legitimacy in the eyes of their people. The thrust of his argument is that things are so bad now that the U.S. doesn't have much to lose in supporting Arab democracies, even those that would be anti-American. As it stands, he believes that Arab governments are able to stifle freedom of thought and speech and manipulate public opinion against Israel and the U.S., to deflect attention away from their own fragile legitimacy. Why not, he proposes, just withdraw U.S. support for these regimes and truly support open political systems. Even if Islamists take over, the necessities of rule and the realities of power would force them to moderate their rhetoric. Arabs would have a channel to vent their political frustrations, and would no longer have any reason to attack the U.S. to get at their own regimes, as was the case in 9/11. Feldman also assumes that in open political systems, Arabs would pay more attention to their own local concerns and that the Palestinian-Israeli dispute would become less important.

Feldman's internal logic is consistent and he argues well, but how realistic are his assumptions? Are Islam and democracy as compatible as he believes?

His views are important because he was among the drafters of the interim Iraqi constitution.

Islamic permutations

Customer Rating:
Democracy had a trial run in Algeria in 1990. The experiment collapsed, however, and the Islamic political party was banned. Muslim countries differ greatly in political system. Violence has lost much of its politcal support. In the past the United States has preferred autocrats to elections in Muslim countries. Secular nationalism has been tried in the Arab world and has failed. Extremists, Palestinians excepted, represent a fringe. Islam has shown much internal flexibility. Democracy and Islam are mobile ideals. Islamic democracy is a desirable synthesis.

Most Muslims do not want religious enforcement. Potential democratic readings of Islam are possible. An official religion need not negate basic rights. Western democracy grew up among pious Christians. Democracies regulate personal relationships to a striking degree. What makes ideas mobile are their universality. Turkey offers a model of democracy. Indonesia has had a democratic movement. Pakistan has had brief periods of democracy. Iran needs gradual democratization. Ataturk's nationalism in Turkey included secularism. He banned traditional dress and imposed the Roman alphabet. (He reminds one of Peter the Great.) Religious parties have been disfavored by the Turkish military.

Indonesian Islam is famous for its relaxed style. Pakistan was conceived as Muslim and democratic. Nationalism has infected Arab states. Arab countries created through colonialism have survived. Some are monarchies. Oil has been transformative. Where there are no monarchies there may be dictatorships. Wherever there is oil, economic conditions are good. The monarchies in oil-producting countries use the oil to preserve power.

The endnotes are of great interest to any reader of this excellent study.

Fantastic and valuable overview of Islam and democracy

Customer Rating:
_After Jihad_ by Noah Feldman is focused on answering one crucial question facing American foreign policymakers today; can democracy flourish in Muslim countries?

Feldman wrote that the attacks of Al-Qaeda and others are the "last, desperate gasp" of a tendency towards violence that has lost widespread support in Islamic lands. Many Muslims stand ready to embrace democracy; it is only their governments and to some extent Western policy that stands in the way. Violent jihad has failed, with revolutionary states having only been achieved in Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan and the only other places where such jihadists enjoy any real popular support is in areas seen as fighting wars of liberation (such as in Chechnya and Kashmir).

Washington policymakers have shied away from pressing for democratic reforms in the Muslim world for a variety of reasons, notably for a need to rely on existing Muslim allies in the war on terror, the risks of instability that democratization may pose, particularly as it might affect oil prices, and the fear that free and fair elections in several countries will bring to power violent, anti-American Islamist groups.

The author argued that this sort of thinking is flawed, that support of dictators may be of benefit in the short-term but is not beneficial in the long-term. In addition, Islam and democracy are both more flexible than is generally thought; that they are what he called "mobile ideas," ideas that can appeal to and be adapted by diverse peoples living in very different countries and societies. Any fear that Islamists may rise to power is realized when those groups are repressed, as reversing the democratic success of Islamic groups in Algeria for instance produced a civil war and similar actions could serve to alienate Islamic groups in Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey, groups that worked within the system but repression of which runs the risk of turning them into a violent opposition.

Feldman divided the book into three parts. In part one he sought to show how Islam and democracy are much more compatible than many think. He felt it was a false dichotomy to say that the only options in the Muslim world are either a secular state or an Islamist state; a range of options are possible; a pure Islamist state relying only on classical Islamic law is only one possibility, and even if it did rely on shari'a law could still be considered democratic if shari'a law was chosen by the majority in that country and the basic rights of non-Muslims were respected. Too often to stay in power and gain the support of secular people in their own country and of the West autocrats have emphasized that they are the only alternative to Islamist rule, and again, this is a false dichotomy. Even if Islamists do come to power there is reason to show - by the example of Iran - that many people after a few cycles of Islamic government might start to look for something more secular. Also, Islamic groups are not by definition anti-American (the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was very pro-American for instance and even Islamic groups in Turkey have been more concerned with meeting EU requirements for membership and infrastructure improvements, not exactly anti-Western activity).

Potential democratic readings already exist in the Qur'an. Both Islam and democracy share a universal belief in the principle of basic human equality, a very good starting point. The first rulers of the Islamic community adopted the title "caliph" (Arabic khalifa), which means a delegate or replacement (whether for the dead Prophet or a stand-in for God), with the Qur'an strongly implying that the caliph was to be selected by the people, that the people retain some power to displace the caliph, that he governed with the consent of the Muslim community, that he administered but did not create Islamic law (and thus was bound by that same law), and he was compelled by the Qur'an to engage in consultation (shura), though admittedly the Qur'an was rather vague on the exact nature of shura.

Feldman answered a number of objections to any synthesis of Islam and democracy. Among them, the necessity of the separate of church and state (there is no separation of church and state in the United Kingdom), the problem of a state-sanctioned imposition or support of Islamic values (Western governments endorse values by awarding medals, proclaiming holidays, and sponsoring the arts and have laws governing many aspects of family life; broadly this is the same as might exist in any Islamic democracy), the role of non-Muslims in a Muslim state (Jews and Christians held prominent positions in many places and eras, from Medina in the Prophet's lifetime to medieval Muslim Granada and beyond), and the harshness of punishments for hudud, crimes such as theft, which requires the thief loses his hand (in reality these punishments are rarely meted out and the standard of proof is often too high to reach; hudud standards for adultery requires four eyewitnesses in good standing of the act itself, difficult to produce).

In part two, he evaluated how Islam and democracy are interacting in many nations in the Muslim world, surveying the various types of regime found in Islamic lands. For those worried that civil society - vital to democracy - does not exist in the Muslim world they need only look at the web of social services and charitable institutions provided in Egypt (and increasingly in Pakistan), not by the government but by Islamic organizations. Islam he felt was unfairly blamed for the mixed success of democracy in Pakistan; it had arguably more to do with poverty, the vast disparity of wealth, low literacy rates, a too-powerful military, and other factors.

In part three Feldman argued that the United States (and the West) must change their policies towards the Muslim world, that it should encourage rather than impede democracy, that this would serve long term American interests, promote peace in the Middle East, and that it is simply the right thing to do.

an instant classic

Customer Rating:
As far as I'm concerned, Noah Feldman has written one of the most important books of the post-9/11 era. This books deals with the question of Islamic democracy, and why Feldman thinks its possible.

This book can be divided into three sections. The first deals with broad discussions of the Muslim faith and of democracy. In this section, Feldman gives a plethora reasons why he thinks Islam and democracy are compatible. He doesn't say that the two fit together perfectly, or that it will be easy to merge the two, but he presents a well-reasoned, well-researched argument.

The second section of the book deals with specific case studies of Islamic countries (mostly from the Middle East). He discusses the climate in each of these countries as it relates to democracy and to Islam. Some countries appear more hopefull than others, but Feldman does a fantastic job at identifying what will have to happen in these countries for democracy to emerge.

The final section of the book deals with American policy specifically and what the U.S. should do to encourage Islamic democracy. I think a very convincing argument is presented here that the U.S. needs a new way of thinking about foreign policy if our long term interests are to be served.

This is one of my new favorite political books. I'm going to assign it for all my current world problem classes at Ohio University. It's well written, the language is clear, and I think that it presents what is ultimately the right course of action for the U.S. Feldman should be the next Secretary of State.

Islamic democracy is the only solution to Islamist violence

Customer Rating:
The negative reviewers here have not read this book. In response to some of their claims: Other than Saudi Arabia, all Muslim nations allow churches/synagogues/temples for their minority faiths. Don't judge all Muslim nations by the behavior of the Saudi Wahabis. In Bangladesh, which is a Muslim democracy, Christmas is a public holiday, even though Christians make up less than 1 percent of the population. In the United Arab Emirates many malls display Christmas decorations and play Christmas carols. Christians also conquered, massacred and oppressed other peoples. Look at the treatment of natives in US, Canadian, South American and Australian history.

But now to the book. Feldman says that the West should not fear democracy in Muslim nations because even if Islamic parties come to power (they usually don't) the people will soon get tired of them because they won't deliver on basics, such as education, infrastructure and jobs. Islamic parties tend to promise Utopia if they get elected but will always fail to deliver on their promises. There is a lot of evidence to support Feldman's argument. You only have to look at Iran to see how quickly most people tired of Islamic rule. Muslims in Northern Nigeria are already starting to grumble about Islamic rule. In Pakistan, an Islamic party recently won power in one state (only because of outrage over the then impending US invasion of Iraq). Many now say that they regret their vote for this party and feel that crackdowns on freedoms and women's (already limited) rights have gone too far. In Malaysia Islamists recently lost control of one state they controlled.

Feldman also claims that Islamic Law can exist alongside democracy. Islamic Law is not actually Islamic. It did not exist in Muhammad's lifetime and was first implemented in the Ottoman Empire about 1000 years after the founding of Islam. Islamic Law only became widespread in the last 50 or so years. However, most Muslims do not know this, they falsely believe that Islamic Law is divine, and will therefore insist on some form of Islamic Law. In many Muslim nations Islamic Law exists alongside secular law. For example, family law tends to come from Islamic Law but criminal or business law is secular. I agree with Feldman that Islamic and secular law can coexist in a democratic society (it already does), and I also agree with Feldman when he says that this will make women and non-Muslims second-class citizens. But Feldman also believes, and I agree, that these societies will evolve and that women and minorities will fight for equal rights as has happened in the West. Keep in mind that in America Christianity was used to justify slavery and women's inequality. And keep in mind, that in America, women and minorities have had to struggle for the rights they have today. It's unreasonable to expect Islamic nations to become bastions of equality and justice overnight. This will be a long slow process.

Feldman is right that we in the West should not fear democracy in Islamic nations. About 40 percent of Muslims currently live in democratic countries, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, France and the US, so Islam and democracy are obviously compatible. For too long the West supported and propped up dictators in Muslim nations and look what happened. America was hit on 9 11 and we and the Europeans will be fighting extremist Islamists for years to come. Giving Muslims the freedom to control their own destinies is the only answer to this problem.