In the heart of Aleppo, Syria, the air is thick with tension. People hurry along the dusty streets, casting wary glances at the armored vehicles that rumble past. The once-vibrant marketplaces are now eerily silent, their stalls empty and their owners long gone. Syrian cities suffered devastating destruction during ten years of war from 2011 to 2020. Aleppo suffered the most of all Syrian cities. Conflict has ravaged the land for years, tearing families apart and leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. While the events of the Arab Spring started as a cry for freedom and democracy, that cry has spiraled into brutal civil wars, with many factions vying for control and innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. The destruction of Aleppo stands as an example of the brutal consequences of authoritarian rule, reflecting the broad pattern of conflict that has plagued the Arab world and fueled movements for democratic change.
While other countries around the world enjoy the freedoms and liberties associated with democracy, most of the Arab world lacks these characteristics. Islam may pose certain challenges to democratic governance, but its foundational principles also harbor intrinsic values that, when understood and applied appropriately, can serve as potent catalysts for the advancement and fortification of democratic practices. Have Islam’s principles ever served as powerful allies in the advancement of democracy, and can they achieve that goal?
The Dramatic Wave of Democratization
In the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, many countries in Asia, Latin America, Southern Europe, and Africa underwent a wave of democratic transitions. During this period, the world saw a “third wave” of democratization. Authoritarian governments faced increasing legitimacy challenges in a global environment that was beginning to embrace democratic principles. The unparalleled economic expansion worldwide during the 1960s elevated living standards, boosted education levels, and significantly enlarged the urban middle class in numerous nations, further provoking democratization.
However, the Arab world has maintained a vast “democracy gap”. When it comes to Gross Domestic Product, 16 out of the world’s 22 Arab countries underachieve in terms of this aspect of democracy: holding competitive elections. A country’s GDP level often indicates its political stability and democratic norms. Even though these countries have relatively high economic indicators, their democratic practices, specifically in terms of free and fair elections, are far lower than their financial status would suggest. However, through an analysis of the world’s 31 Muslim-majority, non-Arab countries, 7 overachieve compared to their GDP level. This data highlights a discrepancy within the Arab world, because despite its economic growth, democratic practices didn’t necessarily follow.
The data explains that Islam itself is not the only explanation for the number of democracy- lacking countries that we see in the Arab world. The “democracy gap” is more present in the Arab world than in Muslim-majority countries, revealing a greater perplexity to the Arab world’s lack of democratic governance. The region’s firm opposition to democracy is a notion that has become referred to as “Arab exceptionalism.”
Furthermore, a notable change in the doctrine and actions of the Catholic Church, exemplified by the Second Vatican Council of 1963-65, led to the transformation of national Catholic churches from supporters of the existing order to critics of authoritarianism. There were alterations in the strategies of external actors, particularly in the European Community, the United States, and the Soviet Union. However, most Arab countries were insulated from this wave of democratization until the Arab Spring in 2010 and 2011. The Arab world’s history of anti-colonialism, Arab unity, tribalism, capitalism, and the resource curse were factors that aided its resistance to the wave.
Many Arab countries had experienced colonial rule, which left a legacy of authoritarian governance structures and limited experience with democratic institutions. This history of external control and manipulation hindered the development of indigenous democratic movements.
As previously mentioned, tribalism or tribal structures and loyalties played a significant role in Arab societies, often prioritizing local or familial ties in addition to Arab-nationalism. This aspect of tribalism can be seen as incompatible with the notions of equality and citizenship that are foundational to democratic governance.
The Arab world’s reliance on oil and natural resources had a mixed impact on democratization. While resource wealth has provided some countries with economic stability and prosperity, it also led to a concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few. This form of capitalism created a barrier to democratization.
Explanations for Exceptionalism
There are three main factors: the shadow of colonialism, the Arab struggle against Israel and its occupation of Palestine, and the dominance of military institutions.
First, the legacy of colonialism has had a profound impact on the political, social, and economic structures of many Arab and Muslim-majority countries. Colonial powers imposed governance systems that often ignored local cultures and traditions, marginalizing cultural-political institutions. This legacy has contributed to distrust of Western democratic models and a desire to assert cultural identities and other forms of governance. Additionally, because many Arab nation-states were cut out of the Ottoman Empire by colonizers, there was no consideration of the ethnic or religious factors that shaped populations. The borders drawn by colonialists left these states with weak “nation-state” or “state-nation” identities, as the borders don’t necessarily align with the cultural or historical realities.
Second, while the Israeli-Palestinian war in Gaza that occurs today sparks much attention worldwide, it is not the first time Arabs have suffered from the conflict. The Arab-Israeli conflict has been a central issue in the Middle East for decades, shaping political narratives and strategies in the region. The failure to resolve the dispute has fueled anti-Western sentiment and contributed to the perception of a global Muslim community under threat. Political actors, such as the United States, have sometimes mobilized this sense of solidarity to rally support for authoritarian regimes or resistance movements, further complicating efforts to establish democratic governance.
Israel directly contributes to the conflict by maintaining its ethnocracy. It is a regime where power is held by the politically dominant ethnic group, Israeli Jews, often at the expense of Arabs. Israel has a strong “judaizing drive,” which can be seen through their deliberate efforts to promote Jewish culture, identity, and presence in the region while minimizing or denying the Arab or Palestinian identity and presence. Although Israel declares itself a democratic state, the discrimination and persecution of Arabs within its own state makes its democratic status suspect. As a result of Israel’s contradictory regime and its American backing, the Arab world sees hypocrisy as a fundamental principle of Western democracy, particularly a successful one. This fosters more resentment towards Israel and democracy as regime type.
Third, in many Arab and Muslim-majority countries, military institutions have played a prominent role in politics, often at the expense of civilian governance. Military coups and interventions have been common, leading to the establishment of authoritarian regimes that prioritize security and stability over democratic principles. The dominance of military institutions has hindered the development of democratic norms and institutions, creating a political environment characterized by repression and instability.
In the American context, the U.S. sent approximately 300 billion dollars in foreign aid to Israel from 1946 to 2023. Israel spends a majority of that money on its military. Additionally, the U.S. has a history of monetarily supporting enemies of democracy: dictators and autocrats. From Bahrain to Egypt, the U.S. willfully makes exceptions within its inconsistent endeavors to defend democracy.
Islam Can Be Compatible With Democracy
It has been established that Islam is not the sole reason for the Arab world’s lack of democracy. Attributable to the various features of the Arab world that were described above, Islam is not responsible for Arab exceptionalism. Some Islamic political movements exhibit significant diversity in their ideologies, methods, and goals. Thus, it is not surprising to encounter influential Islamist thinkers who advocate for and adhere to political liberalism within an Islamic context.
One example is Tunisia’s Hizb al-Nahda political party, which is under the leadership of Rashid Ghannushi, an Islamic philosopher-theologian. Al-Nahda, an Islamist movement, advocates for democracy, political pluralism, and human rights. Unlike many Arab regimes and movements that often only pay insincere support to these ideals, Al-Nahda, led by Ghannushi, remains consistent in its principles, even in the face of repression and violence. Therefore, Al-Nahda is not only an opposition movement but also a religio-cultural force seeking to establish a more “authentic” society in Tunisia within Islamic framing.
Ghannushi said that “Islam is our reference point. It’s the inspiration, but we don’t ask people to elect us because we are more religious than others.” The Muslim Democrat further commented on Islam’s role towards democracy, “we advise all Islamists in the region to be more open and to work with others and to look for a consensus with others, because without national unity, without national resistance against dictatorship, freedom cannot be achieved,” he said. “There needs to be a genuine reconciliation between Islamists and secularists, between Muslim and non-Muslim. Dictatorship feeds off confrontation between all parties. This only leads to chaos and civil war, where no one will be the winner and everyone will be a loser.”
Outside of political movements, Islam itself contains specific doctrines that can actually leverage the promotion of democratic values and practices within Islamic societies. One such doctrine is the concept of shura, or consultation, which emphasizes the importance of decision-making through consultation and consensus-building. This principle can be interpreted as supporting democratic processes, as it encourages the community’s involvement in decision-making.
Another doctrine is that of ijtihad, or independent reasoning, which fosters the adaptation of Islamic teachings to new circumstances. This concept opens the door for reinterpretation of Islamic principles in a way compatible with democratic values and modern governance practices.
Lastly, another significant doctrine is ijma or consensus. By emphasizing this principle, Islamic teachings suggest that decisions should be made collectively and with the community’s input. This notion of consensus-building can be seen as compatible with democratic principles, which also values the input and participation of the population in decision-making processes.
While Islam may present some challenges to democracy, it also contains important principles that can support and promote democratic practices. For the Arab world, specifically countries that practice Islam, engaging with these principles and promoting a nuanced understanding of Islam’s relationship with democracy can help work towards a more democratic future.
Democracy faces numerous challenges in the contemporary world, ranging from the rise of authoritarian leaders to the erosion of democratic norms. More recently, challenges such as the spread of disinformation, populism, and polarization can potentially halter democratic progress. Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort to protect democratic values and institutions, while also acknowledging and incorporating diverse perspectives, including those from Islamic traditions, to strengthen democratic practices globally.
Louisville Political Review 