Samuel Huntington's Arguments Against The Fundamental Ideology Of Democracy

Many scholars argue that certain cultures and beliefs are against the fundamental ideology of democracy, and they believe that in order to establish democracy, these two factors must be changed. Many scholars, such as Samuel Huntington, identify Islam as incompatible with democracy , and Iran is used as an example in many of the scholarly arguments. I believe that the definition of democracy differs among different nations which results in considering various countries such as Iran, undemocratic. My thesis is that democracy is compatible with Islam, and to support my claim I refer to the arguments of three authors: Mariana Malinova, John L. Esposito, and John Obert Voll. To refute Samuel Huntington’s argument that Islam is incompatible with
democracy, I will refer to Iran, an Islamic country that is considered to be in the process of democratization by many scholars such as Nasser Momayesi, Ali Gheissari, Vali Nasr and Ali Mirsepassi. Huntington claims that “Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, Liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state, often have little resonance in Islam.” He also notes that the basis of the political loyalty in Western and Muslim countries has been the opposite.
In the West, a nation state is considered the most important factor of political loyalty and narrower loyalty (are embedded within the larger loyalty to the nation state. Other factors such as religious and linguistic identities are less relevant in the West. However, in Islam, as Huntington mentions, it is the opposite, and people show more loyalty to Islam. He mentions that “Throughout Islam the small group and the great faith, the tribe and the ummah, have been the principal foci of loyalty and commitment, and the nation state has been less significant.” In addition to that, “The idea of sovereign nation state is incompatible with the sovereignty of Allah and the primacy of the ummah.” Huntington investigates the weakness of the nation state in Islam through the conflicts that occurred between different Muslim groups after World War II; for example, Iraq occupying neighboring countries. He then supports his claim by pointing out the observation of another author, Ira Lapidus. Lapidus observes that religion (Islam) plays a major role in the political systems and the social and economic aspects of Arab
countries. Firstly, Huntington acknowledges the poor performance of democracy and its values in Islamic countries. The observation that he uses to support his argument is not accurate because the only Arab country that involves religion in political matters is Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, his argument about Muslims showing less importance to the nation state does not prove the incompatibility of democracy in Islam. I believe that his arguments are judgmental and ethnocentric because he is evaluating Islamic culture with his own Western cultural standards. For example, he argues that Islam does not advocate Western values such as human rights, equality, and democracy. Does that mean all non-Westerns are inhuman? His arguments are based on generalizations and false beliefs. The fact that Huntington calls these values as Western ideas is not justifiable, and it proves that he is in favor of the West. Other than that, the idea of a free market and rule of law have been a part of Islamic doctrines through many forms. In fact, the Quran clearly states the importance of equality and human rights in societies. To clarify my point of view, I refer to Malinova and her observations of democratic elements in Islam.
Malinova argues that, “like all political regimes, democracy depends on the presence of the ruler, i.e. persons who occupy specialized role of authority and can give legitimate commands to others.” She distinguishes democratic governors from non-democratic governors by “the norms that determine how rulers come to power and the practices that hold them accountable for their actions.” She further explains that in Islamic countries there are two types of power: nation-state and political power receiving legitimacy from religious law. Jurists are the ones who are subject to approve the political decisions that are made by rulers, and they have the right to object if it contradicts shari’ah (Islamic law). Therefore, according to Malinova, there is cooperation between the ruler and the jurist before approving decisions. She then claims that one of the fundamentals of democracy is the separation of power, which can be seen in Islam because their legal and political power are separated.
Malinova’s point about the separation of power in Islam is important because it shows how there are elements in Islam that are expedient with democracy. In Islamic governments, “the ruler is God’s tool for the realization of divine will and guarantor of the application of scared law.” Thus, the ruler must be chosen by the ummah (community). In democracy, the person who governs the people must be chosen by the people. Furthermore, the same concept is applied in Islam which shows a parallelism between Islam and democracy. Malinova explains that “consensus” in selecting the ruler is made through the process of shura (consultation). During the consultation there are many representatives from different groups, and it is not limited to the religious leaders. Therefore, people from different groups consult each other before making important decisions.
Secondly, Huntington is not aware of the fact that democracy can be seen through various lenses, which have many different shapes and meanings. Furthermore, the term democracy itself is given different definitions and there is no exact meaning of democracy. Different countries value different elements of democracy; some, for example, might value elections and representations, and others may value equality among people. Because of the significant importance given to one element of democracy, people think that democracy is only about that one element, and this is why people have different definitions of democracy. The two authors that I rely on to support my claim are Espolito and Voll.
Espolito and Voll, in their book Democracy and Islam, argue that democracy has many meanings and every culture will form an independent type of democratic government.
They further claim that “In global terms, the definition of “democracy” is closely identified with major elements of the political traditions of Western Europe and the United States.” On the other hand, they argue that, “Even within the Western tradition democracy is an essentially contested term.” The two authors refer to Islamic countries as “Theo-democracy”, but they argue that basic democractic elements such as representative elections and parliament are compatible with Islam, and Islam encourages democracy. The authors associate democracy with the concepts of shura (consultation), ijma (consensus), and ijtihad (independent interpretive judgment), and finally claim that democracy in Islam exists whither the term “democracy” is used or
not. Malinova, Espolito and Voll’s arguments are quite similar because these authors explain different elements of democracy in the Islamic world. All of the authors refer to consultation, which is the most important characteristic of democracy in Islam. However, the role that people play is significant through the characteristics of the Islamic concept of democracy. For instance, before taking any actions for the community or ummah, the leaders should consult people and ask their opinion about political decisions. Furthermore, democracy has already taken its root in Muslim communities, but through different aspects.