Problem of Democracy in Islamic States
Although some Islamic country has applied democracy but some westerns scholar are still questing to Muslim ability in adopting democracy as whole. Karen Armstrong, British writer, was question: can religious states be democratic? And whether Islamic ideology will allow Muslims to embrace democracy and freedom? Armstrong fundamentally questioning the religious state or states based on religious role in dealing with democracy. Perhaps that question arise because of many Muslim countries that embraces democracy little different in implementation as western does.
Hesitancy of western scholars to the Muslim ability in maintaining democracy was based on historical fact that majority of Muslim countries are western colony. Alexander Kronemer said that the greatest obstacle to democracy in Muslim word is not Islam as ideology, but poverty, the lack of education, corruption, and repressive regime—and this is important point—are supported by democracies of the West. Many Muslim countries were colonized, they have no single decision to maintenance democracy before independent, and still cannot move forward because strong influence of colonialism. Additionally, intervention of western to internal political matter of Islamic countries to the implementation of democracy makes democracy lose it spirit. It makes Muslim lose the ability to organize who is him. Whereas, western always proclaim that democracy come from west, and west are democracy guardian. French, British Kingdom and United States continued to control ex-colonies countries. In Egypt al-Wafad Islamic party won election for seventieth, but because of British interventions and Egypt Kingdom policies just have hold administration for three times. Iran parliamentary before revolution also tried to constitute a democratic constitutional but that effort was fail because of foreign nations, Russia, British Kingdom, and United States support despotic regime of king, Pahlevi’s dynasty.
Muslim countries after independent eras are still tricky to avoid colonialism influences. French still control Marocco and Egypt and British kingdom made British Commonwealth to control ex-England colonies. An Islamic country which tries to implement democracy was in the hard positions; in one hand democracy was ideology of colonialism where Islamic countries become a victim. Moreover, many Muslims believe that Islamic state should operate khalifah as the only Islamic system. For that reason, many Islamic countries just allow democracy as ritual and institutional things, like general election to choose president and parliament. Democracy is not for pursuing people prosperity and for establishing people right guarantee, like freedom of speech and expression, and equality in front of laws.
There is longing feeling of several Muslims to adopt democracy without losing Islamic tradition identity. Anyway, for Muslim, khilafah was important system that Islamic tradition inherited that refer to prophet eras administration and khulafaurrasidhin. Of course to implement khilafah as whole almost impossible in the time because of Muslims have been divided into nation states. In the other hand, there are tension between Islam and democracy that makes both of them hard to unify. Islam and democracy for same people are different, even opposites each other. Islam after cold ward positioned as opponent ideology against western ideology. The world split into two basic camps; either democratic or totalitarian. Being democratic means American alliance, and anti-American means anti democracy. By using cold war framework thinking, Islam was like communism ideology that stands against democratic ideology. Of course that all wrong, Islam is not communism, because of the values of them are contrary each others. Western approach to Islam should different to communism. Islam is religion, not merely political ideology. There are ethics and moralities in Islam that lead to brotherhood not to enmity. Addressing Islam to the bombing and suicide are not qualified. The whole Islamic teaching is about harmony and against injustice and destruction.
Karen Armstrong true when she said that democracy could be various and Islam was not democracy opponent or anti-democracy. There are principles in Islamic law, such as the need to shura (consultation) before passing new legislation that fix to democracy. Ismail al-Faruqi also shares in opinion that Islam can accept democratic principle. Islam is not cease system, although khilafah has been practiced since long times ago, that not means fix system in Islam. Shura didn’t describe despotic system, because all decisions are negotiated. Sunni and Syiah might respond in different ways. In practice Islamic Sunni states tend to accept democracy without presuppose. But, they added Islamic laws and Islamic courts. In syiah who has strong Imamah (Syiah spiritual leader) modified some element of democracy by adding religious authority. In the case of Iran, syiah administration has derived by Ulema authority. Even, Shi’ite has a capability to separate politic and religion. Armstrong said that this separation of religion and politic was sacred because all states were seen as corrupt. That separation closes to western concept, which is separation between state and church. Perhaps, one different thing that was very significant is about sovereignty. Islam teaches that sovereignty is own God, human voice is not truly sovereign. It means that Islamic sovereignty is in the hand of God not in the human voices. Yet, it not means Muslim voices are nothing in Islam. It is a fact that many Muslims accept democracy, like in Indonesia, because democracy suitable to Muslim. Muslim in Egypt, Morocco and other Islamic country practiced democracy without losing Islamic identity.
Many critics to Islamic democratic usually refer to practice of democracy in Iran. Iran democracy called as wilayah al-faqih, where religious authority has strong position in maintaining the role of state. Higher authority is not in the people voice, but Syiah ulemas decisions. Wilayah al-faqih represents religious power toward political matter. But, Iran has democratic institution and functioning elections. General election chooses president and parliament members. Does Islamic democracy developed in Iran was deviation? If minimally democracy is measured by general election and parliament, of course Iran was democratic country. Status of Islam cannot address Iran as non-democratic state. Probably right that Iran was anti-American, but it not means anti-American cannot be democratic states. I think, making an ideal form of democracy was absolutely error. As long as supreme democratic policy in the hand of people voices, the kind of democracy will follow the interest of people. There are many factor of developing democracy in which not only religions. Politic and economy are other factors that affect to development of democracy. Different kind and implementation of democracy in Islamic countries can be right. Armstrong contends that democracy needs a process. Western democracy builds in wide array in long history since enlightenment eras. In the process happens much destruction, anomalies, and conflicts, but that all development process. Islamic democracy is in the process of finding an appropriate form to Islam and democracy. Muslim tried to found ways to give Qur’an and Sunnah a democratic interpretation. Iran democracy perhaps is not ideals religious democratic example, but should be remembered that Islam and western developed democracy from different roots. []
