"Islamocracy: In Search of a Muslim Path to Democracy"
Address by Ali A. Mazrui, CSID Chair
Director, Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton
University

Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, Fourth Annual
Conference
Washington, DC
May 16, 2003

It may be easier to be categorical about the question "Why
Democracy" than about the second question "Why now?"

Why democracy? Because it enables people to participate in
choosing their rulers; because democracy tries to check the
powers of those rulers and increase the influence of the
citizens; because at its best democracy protects and
stimulates the individual without sacrificing the
community; because at its best democracy seeks to promote
liberty without sacrificing equality.

I do not believe in "the end of history", a la Fukuyama. I
do not believe that the search for a better system of
government should now end because democracy is the best the
human imagination can invent. I do not believe in ending
the search.

But I do believe that democracy is the most humane system
of government that the human race has so far invented.

But can it be combined with another system of values? The
Scandinavian countries have combined liberal democracy with
socialist principles to produce a more compassionate
democracy than we have in the United States.

The English have combined formal theocracy with practical
democracy. Formally the Queen is both Head of State and
Governor of the Church of England. The Archbishop of
Canterbury is partly appointed by the Prime Minister. And
major doctrinal changes in the Church of England need the
approval of the British parliament either directly of by
delegation.

But at the practical level the British system is in the
liberal democratic tradition. It is slightly less of an
open society than the American system but slightly more of
a compassionate democracy than the American system.

If Scandinavians can combine liberal democracy with
socialist principles, and the English can combine a formal
Protestant theocracy with a practical liberal democracy,
can Muslims combine liberal democracy with Islamic
principles? Can islamocracy be a new vision of governance?

That is one of the most important questions facing the
Muslim world. Our thinkers and policy-makers need to
address it repeatedly - as our own Abdulaziz Sachadena at
the University of Virginia has done.

Indeed, we are not starting from scratch. Some democratic
principles have been part of Islam from the beginning -
concepts like idjitihad and the shura. The earliest Caliphs
after the Prophet Muhammad were chosen through an ancient
electoral college. Earlier Muslim kingdoms devised systems
of pluralism, such as the millet system under the Ottoman
Empire guaranteeing autonomy for minorities. What is the
difference between Islamocracy and Islamic theocracy? We
view the concept of "Islamocracy" as a synthesis between
Islam and democracy. The segment "Isla" is from Islam. The
segment of "ocracy" is from democracy. The letter "m" is
shared by the words Islam and demos. The phenomenon of
islamocracy has been evolving for centuries.

Today the Islamic Republic of Iran as a system of
government has received less attention from democratic
thinkers than it deserves. It is true that the theocratic
element is still top heavy, and the powers of the clerics
excessive; the Islamic Republic's system is still a
fascinating combination of mass electoral politics and
theocratic governance. Is the theocracy in Iran getting
democratized? Will one day Iran become like England - a
neo-theocracy in form but a living democracy in substance?
Is the Islamic Republic a new but flawed stage in the
evolution of islamocracy?

On the issue of gender Muslim societies are far behind the
United States in the liberation of women. But liberation of
women is not the same as empowerment of women. Some Muslim
countries have been more ambitious in the empowerment of
women than has the United States.

Long before the United States has had a woman president or
a woman vice-president Indonesia today has a woman
president and Bangladesh a woman Prime Minister. Indeed,
ultimate political power in Bangladesh has rotated between
two remarkable women -- Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina
Wajed. Can these gender elements be built into a new
islamocracy?

Two other Muslim countries have experimented with women as
Heads of Government - Pakistan where Benazir Bhutto was
prime minister twice and Turkey which experimented with Ms.
Ciller. And all this before Germany has had a woman

Chancellor, or France a woman President, or Russia a woman
President, or the United States has experimented a
revolution of having the First Gentleman instead of First
Lady in the White House. One day the US will catch up and
have a male first spouse.

There is still work to be done for democracy in the United
States and much more work to be done in the Muslim world.
The American democracy is already here, however imperfect.
But Islamic versions of democracy are being slowly forged
by history.

On the issue of the new democratization of the Muslim
world, scholars should indeed address the question of "Why
Democracy Now". But they should also examine the converse
question, "Why not democracy now"?

Can Democracy be Planned?

Should Muslim countries be engaged in planned
democratization rather than instant democracy? Was Mikhail
Gorbachev's policies of instant glasnost and instant
perestroika a bad lesson for the Muslim world? The
Gorbachev revolution led to the disintegration of the
Soviet Union and large-scale anarchy, with the rise of the
Russian mafia, a brutal civil war in Chechnya, and a
catastrophic collapse of the Russian economy.

Had Gorbachev attempted planned democratization instead of
instant perestroika and glasnost, could he have served his
country better? Would he have been recognized as a hero to
his fellow Russians and not just a hero to Westerners who
had a vested interest in a much weaker Russia?

Should Iraq today be helped in planned democratization -
with a constitution which spells out phases of
implementation? One plan could be a much stronger executive
branch for the first twenty years, and later a tilt in
favour of parliamentary democracy.

An alternative plan could be a collective presidency in
Iraq for the first 30 years - a troika of Shia, Sunni and
Kurd, co-Presidents and a parliament based on proportional
representation.

After the 30 years the Iraqi constitution would be reviewed
to reduce the salience of ethnic and sectarian criteria of
democratization. Iraqis should be encouraged to debate
these issues themselves at every phase of democratization.

Our conference here today should indeed examine "Why
Democracy Now" but it should also address the issue of "Why
not now"? A plan of democratic gradualism may be needed in
some Muslim countries. We have learnt from Nigeria and from
some of the former Soviet republics that instant democracy
corrupts; absolute democracy corrupts absolutely.

In a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton written about this
time of the year in the spring of 1887 Lord Acton
bequeathed to our political lexicon an immortal
formulation. Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt; and
absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The founding fathers of the United States anticipated Lord
Acton's worry before Lord Acton was born. The American
founding fathers set the stage for limited government with
checks and balances. Now Muslims have to ask themselves
whether there is something else which corrupts. Could that
something else be democracy itself? Have we indeed learnt
from Nigeria and from some of the former Soviet Republics
that instant democracy corrupts; absolute democracy can
corrupt absolutely? Conversely can Iraq become an example
of planned democratization in the Muslim world?

As for the United States itself, we cannot afford to
promote democracy abroad and let it lapse here at home. We
can surely liberate Muslim women in Afghanistan without
detaining Muslim men in the United States. We can empty the
political prisons of Saddam Hussein without having a
Guantanamo Goulag of our own in Cuba under American
jurisdiction.

It has often been asked whether the United States can fight
two wars at the same time. The real test is whether the
United States can win a war for democracy abroad without
losing its war for democracy at home.
Fortunately we have a major lesson from our founding
fathers. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." For
the Muslim world Islamocracy is a vision of synthesis.

For the Muslim world we still have to learn "Why
democracy". For the United States we need to remind
ourselves "Why democracy Now" inspite of everything.

Those who have already acquired democracy need to protect
it by all democratic means.

The price of civil liberties in the Muslim world is eternal
struggle. The price of civil liberties in the United States
is indeed eternal vigilance.

Let us go for both. Amen.

 © Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy, 2003.  All
rights reserved.
1050 Connecticutt Avenue, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone/Fax: (202) 772-2022







__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~