24 April 2003 - Democracy or Theocracy

We are told that Iraq is a test case for the US. Well it certainly is a unique situation in US relations in the region. The question is "Can a US friendly democracy be established in Iraq?". 

Many people in the region and beyond are doubtful that "US friendly" and "democratic" are compatible in Iraq. What if the people want a theocracy? What if the people are hostile to Israel and blame America for the plight of the Palestinians? What if civil war breaks out? What if the US forces come under more and more attacks by volunteer fighters seeing themselves as fighting against a foreign occupation?

The fact is that Muslims across the region are very keen on democracy. They have had rulers imposed on them for a very long time and yearn to have the ability to shape their own political futures. But what price are they are willing to pay for this freedom? Would the people of Iraq accept a state that didn't guarantee ayatollahs and mosque imams a special role in government? Would they normalise relations with Israel? Would they accept a US military presence over many years to come? If the answers to these questions are no, then the alternatives are also painful. Maybe there will be protracted civil war against a new imposed dictator, maybe there will be protracted fighting against US / UK occupation forces.

In the next few years, the Iraqi people will have to make these choices. A lot will depend on them. Can the Iraqis successfully make the transition from helpless victims of a tyrant to chief protagonists in the future of Iraq? 

The key to a successful transition is the potential for reaching agreement as to the way the religious motivations of Iraqis can influence government. The US, is no doubt keen to set up a secular regime where there is no state recognition of any religion. Modelled on the US, this is a difficult thing for some Muslims to accept. However, in fact this should not pose any serious problems. Let me explain...

In the US secularism has meant people being free to practice their religion. It has not meant that religion has no role in politics, as some versions of secularism were known for. Far from it. The separation of church and state is not the same thing as the separation of religion and politics. Religious people often make very good politicians. What is required by the separation of church and state is that no religious institution is established as having specific authority in the power structure of government. In Islam, there is no established church as such, so separating church and state should not, in principle, pose a problem.

So long as people are free to be religious and religious people are free to be elected as politicians, then there is no need to have a religious institution guaranteed to have a role in the state. The role of mosques and schools of Islamic law can be channelled through the ballot box. 

The schools of Islamic law are the closest thing in Islam to churches, in that they usually have a hierarchy of positions and produce judgements about law. Their existence and relation to the state has a long and complex history. Unlike Iran, Iraqi Muslims follow a variety of schools of Islamic law, both Sunni and Shia. Avoiding recognising any one school may not only be possible, but it is probably quite necessary. 

Having laws developed by schools of Islamic law was in any case a necessity only as the result of the arrival of tyrants ruling Muslims. Before that point the mechanism of deciding law was done through broad consultation by the ruler with scholars and the population generally. Only once the rulers lost their legitimacy by getting into power, not by election, but by force, did people turn to independent scholars for legal opinions. If government becomes once again legitimate by virtue of elections, then perhaps the need for such schools of Islamic law will diminish and their role in society as theoretical lawmakers will no longer be needed. 

Once the law is made by the people then if the people want to ensure that laws are not passed that contradict Islamic principles of justice, then these principles can become part of the constitution. 

But as we see now in the USA, having a constitution is not a guarantee in itself. What is needed is a politically active population that believes in keeping the constitution enforced on the rulers at all times. A passive and apathetic population will never bother to do this. 

The spreading of democracy in the Muslim world could well open up latent potentials in Islam to benefit the world.  Islam will always have the major role in motivating Muslims and once they are freed from autocratic structures, and regain the confidence of being able to run their own affairs, Muslims will be able to achieve the great things which their religion inspires them to do. Part of this could be struggling to keep the constitution of the state obeyed. 

The situation in Iraq, for perhaps the first time, makes the US directly responsible for the government of a Muslim population. Many people want to see the situation lead to complete failure. But whether the Americans fail to impose their will or not, we need to look beyond their agenda and focus on the what the people of Iraq can achieve. It is the task of all people who really care for the future of this planet, to help the people of Iraq to rebuild their lives and gain the real independence needed for them to choose their future governments.