Islamic Movements vs. Democracy

In her article, "Three Kinds of Movements," Tamara Cofman Wittes discusses the prominence of Islamist movements and the prospects for democratic change in the Arab world where these movements have been present. Wittes asserts that the term "Islamist" is so vague as to render the term meaningless. It is because of this vagueness that she categorizes Islamic movements into three types. Despite the varying characteristics and consequently different policy approaches for each type, the barrier to moving towards democracy may be too great to overcome because of the definition of "Islamist." Put simply, "Islamist" refers to a political view that is based on religious interpretations and obligations. As long as Islamist movements are prominent in the Arab world, democracy will most likely not be recognized and is perhaps not a fundamental goal or intended end.

Political Islam is carried out by the groups that make up the three characteristically different Islamic movements. The relationship between politics and religion favors religion in such a way that politics are dependent on religious views. Many of the Islamic values that dictate the politics of Islamist movements contradict democratic principles that are necessary to build and sustain democracy. If state and religion are no separate, Islamic values will trump democratic ones, especially when the use of force is monopolized by a particular group or various groups in a weak or failing state. However, even a "moderate" Islamic movement in a strong state in which groups want to "transform society and government into something more 'Islamic,'" the religious focus of bringing about change is not sufficient to bring about democratic change and would require a transformed political perspective. 

Though I am skeptical about democratic change as a result of Islamic movements, I am not sure that these movements are striving for such change in the first place. If groups are fundamentally Islamist, is the purpose of moderation necessarily to step towards real democracy? Even if public discussion of political issues is expanded, such discussion may remain religiously-oriented since that is the very nature of Islamist movements. And even if restrictions on political association and the formation of political parties are eased, those political associations and political parties may simply be extensions of Islamist movements. The means of Islamist movements are not exactly compatible with a democratic end, again because of the religious influence on politics.

I am not saying that one cannot both be Muslim and desire democratic change, since there is a substantial Muslim population in the United States, but a political movement that is based on Islam poses many challenges to the process of democracy. If an Islamic movement were to exist and function within a democracy, what would be the relation between the authority of the caliph and the power of the fairly and freely elected political leader? In a court of law, what would be the relation between the decision of the imam and the ruling of the court? In regards to Islamic law, imams may give different interpretations and therefore different "rulings" about divorce and the consequent agreements over money and children. According to my current Islam class, if a Muslim is dissatisfied with a "ruling," he or she may choose to seek the decision of another imam. This inconsistency is a product of various Islamic interpretations, and raises an important question about the coherence of Islamic and democratic values.