Page 2 of
2 BOOK
REVIEW Muslim
democracy: An oxymoron? Democracy in
Muslim Societies by Zoya
Hasan (ed)
Reviewed by Sreeram
Chaulia
be attempted. Authoritarian
tactics like crushing of dissent and suborning of
the judiciary, particularly during the reign of
Mahathir Mohamad, also place a question mark on
the quality of Malaysia's democracy. Provinces
ruled by Islamists take strict measures to curb
"moral decadence" and government
bureaucracies go about
enforcing the "official doctrine of Islam" and
prohibiting "deviationist activities". (p 159)
Increasing Islamization and proselytization backed
by law are also generating "scary" moments for
non-Muslims.
Mohammad Waseem's
enlightening chapter on Pakistan focuses on
deficits in the project of state building that
created imbalances in favor of the army and
bureaucracy at the cost of civil society and the
legislature. The migrant Muslim professional
class, which was the backbone of the Pakistan
movement, had a "well-established 'statist'
perspective of paternalistic rule over an
illiterate peasant society". (p 190) It captured
the new state’s apparatus and institutionalized
strong centralist connotations of governance.
Lacking a meaningful electoral
constituency of their own, state elites worked
against the principle of majority rule. The
Pakistani army always favored presidentialism over
parliamentarism in order to keep the position of
chief executive safe from accountability and to
ensure stable tenure. It deliberately weakened
political parties through the device of
"grassroots-level government". All along,
Pakistan's state elites tried to "manage ethnic
politics with the help of Islamic ideology",
handing over formal or informal dictatorial power
over society to mullahs.
Waseem avers that
the Islamist ascendancy, which has currently
peaked, "needs to be understood in the context of
an unstable regional setting, the civil-military
crisis at home and the ideological framework of
politics in Pakistan". (p 212) Strategic alliances
of military dictators with the US have perpetuated
the undemocratic and terrorist currents emanating
from this country.
Korel Goymen's article
on Turkey underlines the wholesale borrowing of
Western institutions and techniques after 1923 as
crucial for the development of democracy.
Overhauling the clerical hierarchy and Shari’a law
brought about a radical change from a religious
empire to a secular republic. Mustafa Kemal's
"cultural offensive" to secularize public life set
definitive limits on the political role that Islam
could play. However, traditional Islamic forces
remained alive and mobilized the suspicions and
fears of the masses against modernizing elites
once the transition to a multi-party system
occurred after World War II.
The Turkish
army appointed itself as the guardian of Kemal's
legacy and began acting as a bulwark against
religiously-inspired parties. Coups in 1960, 1971,
1980, and 1997 were all targeted at manifestations
of political Islam. Elected governments led by
conservative religious parties are currently
accepted by the military, but with apprehensions.
Urban and better educated Turks also remain
extremely nervous about the recent successes of
political Islam.
However, Turkish
Islamists have operated within secular-democratic
channels and do not possess the extremist gene
found elsewhere. The present Islamic ruling party
has even passed legislation against discrimination
of homosexuals. Goymen attributes this
exceptionalism to historical sequencing.
"Republican Turkey initiated and consolidated its
secular project before allowing Islam to play a
role in politics." (p 239)
Censorship of
the media and military meddling to "correct"
politicians' mistakes are two outstanding
bottlenecks that the country still grapples with.
Paradoxically, Goymen remarks that "most citizens
are comfortable with the military's role as a
guardian of democracy". (p 243) He also mentions
the European Union's accession "road maps" as
external stimulants for Turkey to deepen its
democratic potential.
A common theme
emerging from this book is that Islam has been
manipulated by two types of actors - conservative
authoritarian rulers who need props for social
acceptance, and radical social activists who need
a mobilizing creed against dictatorship or central
government oppression. Hasan moots ijtihad
(open interpretation of Islam) as the mechanism
behind this instrumental use of religion that
damages democracy.
Unfortunately, she does
not comparatively examine non-Muslim countries to
see if religion has similarly been manipulated.
What explains the relative infrequency of
religious manipulation as a tool of regime
legitimization or de-legitimization in non-Muslim
countries? Does it boil down to whether a religion
has institutions like ijtihad or does it go
deeper into the way different organized faiths
extract submission from believers?
Is it
easier to mobilize the masses for revolution or to
consecrate a tyranny using Islam in a Muslim
country than using Buddhism in a Buddhist country,
Hinduism in a Hindu country, or Christianity in a
Christian country? What is the link between the
method of struggle or legitimation chosen by
actors in a country and its dominant religion?
Owing to its dogmatic stress on non-cultural
factors, the book fails to probe these interesting
puzzles.
Democracy in Muslim Societies.
The Asian Experience by Zoya Hasan (ed). Sage
Publications, New Delhi, September 2007. ISBN:
9780761935667. Price: US$$49.95, 266 pages.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
