RELIGIOUS STATE AND DEMOCRACY
Although some Islamic country has applied democracy but some western 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 deal with democracy. Perhaps that question arise because of many Muslim countries that embraces democracy little different in implementation as western does.
Religious state terms actually did not refer to all Muslim nations, but specific to Iranian democracy. Iran has democratic institution and functioning elections. However, the position of religious leader was very significance in maintaining the role of states. They called Iran democracy as wilayah al-faqih. Higher authority is not in the people voice, but Syiah ulemas decisions. Wilayah al-faqih represents religious power toward political matter. Does Islamic democracy developed in Iran was deviation? If minimally democracy measured by general election and parliament, of course Iran was democratic country. Status of Islam cannot address Iran as non-democratic state.
There are tension between Islam and democracy that makes both of them hard to unify. Islam after cold ward positioned as opponent ideology against western ideology. For me, viewing word as split into two basic camps; either democratic or totalitarian was not relevant. Being democratic is not means American alliance, and anti-American is not means anti democracy. Iran was anti-American, but it embraces democratic states. At vice versa, many despotic regime supports by western democratic states. Like Iran in the eras of Pahlavi’s regime supported by British and America.
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.
Islam itself, according to Armstrong was not anti-democracy. There are principles in Islamic law, such as the need to shura (consultation) before passing new legislation. In the case of Shi’ite even have 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.
It is right that Islamic sovereignty 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 Muslim accept democracy, like in Indonesia, because democracy fix to Muslim. Muslim in Egypt, morocco and other Islamic country also have practiced democracy trough general election and give freedom to inhabitants in giving the voices. In those countries, religious role arise in political party in which struggling to Islamic interest.
Making ideal such form of democracy was fallacy. 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.
Alexander Kronemer said that the greatest obstacle to democracy in Muslim word is not Islam as ideology. It is poverty, the lack of education, corrupt, and repressive regime—and this is important point—are supported by democracies of the West. For Armstrong, those problems were waste of colonialism. 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. France, Britain, and laterally America continued control the political destiny of these developing nations. For certain Muslim, like HTI (hizbut Tahrir Indonesia), democracy is bad name, even like Armstrong notions, that was bad joke.
Different kind and implementation of democracy in Islamic countries was not fallacy. Armstrong tried to see these relations in more wise ways. He said 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. []
