The Enigma of Democracy: Unravelling the Complex Relationship with Religion
Is democracy and religion destined for an eternal clash?
Engaging with the news is a rather disheartening endeavour; it appears that Murphy's law, asserting that anything that can go wrong will, holds true. However, akin to an irresistible train wreck, we find ourselves unable to avert our gaze from the news. The media's inclination for sensationalism and embellishment continues to captivate our attention, creating a morbid fascination that compels us to stay tuned.
The ubiquitous term that incessantly dominates news narratives, particularly in the context of reporting conflicts, is none other than “democracy.” It is portrayed as the panacea for all the woes that afflict nations. Displeased with your leaders? Democracy is posited as the remedy. Economic growth falling short of expectations? A prescription of democracy is suggested to revitalise progress. In the arena of war, conflict, or dispute, the side embracing democracy is invariably hailed as the virtuous protagonist. In the contemporary media landscape, particularly in Western discourse, democracy has become synonymous with stability and is deemed the default aspiration for nations yet to attain it.
Democracy, as delineated by the Oxford Reference, emerges as a political system granting citizens participation in decision-making or the election of representatives to governmental bodies. The Cambridge Dictionary encapsulates it as a belief in freedom and equality, constituting a system where power is vested in elected representatives or directly in the people. In essence, democracy manifests in a nation where authority is held and wielded by elected representatives. Its historical inception dates back to 500 BC in Athens, the term itself being a fusion of ‘dêmos’ (common people) and ‘krátos’ (force/might). A resurgence occurred during the Cold War, with the narrative framing the Eastern Bloc as non-democratic due to people suppression and dictatorial governance. Western nations, led by the United States, project themselves as democratic beacons, their economic and military prowess implicitly endorsing democracy as the ‘correct’ mode of governance. The Cold War era often employed the promise of democracy to oppressed populations, emphasising a dichotomy between the people and their governments, asserting that removing oppressive regimes would pave the way for a new era of democracy.
If one delves into the realm of academic discussions on democracy, a discerning observer would undoubtedly discern a persistent debate since the 21st century regarding the compatibility of religion with democracy. This discourse unfolds against the backdrop of a distinguished Western initiative to ‘democratise’ Islamic nations at the onset of the 21st century, triggered by the tragic September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre (WTC) in the United States. This cataclysmic event led to the subsequent invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The unparalleled military might of the U.S. swiftly overcame the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Iraqi army—a feat in warfare. However, the real challenge emerged in determining the course of action for these nations post-victory. The U.S. government propagated the democratisation of these countries to the global community, using it as a rationale for its sustained presence. To be fair, it worked with Germany and Japan post World War 2. In navigating the aftermath, the discourse surrounding U.S. efforts and the resistance encountered from the local population has consistently framed the issue as rooted in the perceived incompatibility between religion and democracy, particularly Islam. The prevailing narrative often juxtaposes Western secular democracy as representative of the former, while Islamic Sharia and theocracy embody the latter. The prevalent consensus emerging from these discussions posits that democracy and religion are inherently incompatible and ought to remain distinct entities in the contemporary world.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, religion is defined as the belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman powers (God or gods) manifested in worship and reverence. It posits that humans are inherently predisposed to religion, with this inclination embedded in our DNA. Examining historical records reveals that throughout the annals of history, humanity consistently adhered to various forms of religious beliefs. In the contemporary era, the surviving religions include the Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and their offshoots—and the Dharmic religions, encompassing Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. While there are other religions that endure into modern times, they tend to be smaller and geographically confined in scope. Despite the increasing prevalence of atheism and agnosticism, the overarching reality is that a substantial portion of humanity remains religious, even if only in name. Notably, numerous religious individuals and organisations thrive within the frameworks of secular democracies.
A subtlety often overlooked in the discourse on democracy and religion is the tendency to cast them as adversaries, both vying for the same objective: governance. Many fail to acknowledge that, whether by choice or circumstance, religion, for the most part, withdrew from considerations of temporal power, particularly at the outset of the 20th century—some religions even earlier.
Christianity, for instance, can be viewed as marginalised into a ceremonial role due to the principle of the separation of church and state, and although not entirely or contextually accurate, I believe that this concept is perfectly articulated in Mark 12:17 (Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s). The notable exception is Vatican City, owing to obvious reasons. While shaping the character of the only Jewish state, Israel, Judaism has its rabbinical courts primarily focused on implementing kashrut laws, ethnic affirmation, and managing marriages. Nevertheless, for all other intents and purposes, Israel functions as a secular country.
Hinduism, forming the bedrock of India’s historical and cultural fabric, doesn’t govern the country based on Vedic laws. Similarly, despite Thailand's staunch Buddhist character, its political, economic, and administrative policies are not dictated by religious precepts. Even Islam, often considered a poster child for religious rule aspiring to the supremacy of Sharia worldwide, fails to conform universally to this model. Except for a few countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the current Afghanistan, the majority of Muslim countries predominantly operate under secular laws. Some integrate elements of Sharia into their legal and administrative frameworks, while others distinctly separate religious and state affairs, mirroring the separation of church and state practised by Western democracies.
Examining these examples, it becomes apparent that secular democracy and religion are not inherently antagonistic. On the contrary, one could argue that the relationship between democracy and religion is symbiotic. Religion, in many instances, assumes a subordinate role, collaborating seamlessly with democracies to leverage their respective strengths and mitigate or eliminate each other’s weaknesses, all in the pursuit of advancing the interests of a nation.
As I noted earlier, the majority of the world's population is, by and large, religious or follows some form of religion that profoundly influences their day-to-day lives and thoughts. In the context of a secular democracy, citizens are endowed with the right to vote, prompting political parties and their representatives to strategically appeal to voters, leveraging various factors, including ethnic and religious affiliations.
Contemporary secular democracies illustrate this phenomenon vividly. Take the United States, a prominent secular democracy, where a formidable Christian lobby significantly shapes pro-Israel policies. In Israel, the Haredim, devout practitioners of Judaism comprising 20% of the population (with projections indicating growth), wield substantial political influence, serving as influential kingmakers. India, the world's largest democracy, witnessed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), positioned on a pro-Hindu platform, ascend to power in 2014, propelled by substantial support from religious Hindu voters. In Malaysia's previous election (2022), the Islamist party PAS secured the most seats, riding on an Islamism-centric platform.
Examining these contemporary examples leads to the inference that democracy functions as religion's ardent enabler. Leaders elected on religious platforms tend to enact policies aligned with their religious convictions, gradually appearing antagonistic to democracy. This trend manifests through restricting participation for those who don't share similar religious beliefs while amplifying the involvement of those who do. The intricate and evolved nature of democracy, traced from its origins in ancient Greece to the present, has seemingly been distilled to a fundamental principle: we cast our votes to empower individuals who resonate with our appearance, voice, and beliefs. Unfortunately, this simplistic voting pattern shows minimal indications of evolving for the better in the foreseeable future.
This enduring pattern is far from novel and has constituted the prevailing norm since the dawn of human civilisation. Across the annals of history, temporal power has perpetually been bestowed upon individuals with the apparent consent of the divine. Ancient kings unabashedly asserted their right to rule as divinely ordained, and the clergy wholeheartedly endorsed and championed this claim. The inception of the Islamic caliphate system was anchored in the notion that caliphs were executing the mandate of Muhammad and, by extension, the divine mandate of Allah. Likewise, the Japanese monarchy staked its legitimacy by asserting divine descent from the Sun God, a lineage purported to stretch back 2,684 years.
Temporal and divine power, perceived as inseparable facets of a single entity, have been viewed as two sides of an indivisible coin. Attempts to sever this profound connection, whether initiated by temporal rulers or the clergy at different junctures in history, have consistently yielded disastrous outcomes, plunging societies into protracted wars with grievous human costs. This historical tapestry underscores the enduring entwining of temporal and divine authority, shaping the course of human governance across diverse cultures and epochs.
Hence, sceptics raise their eyebrows as academic and popular discussions juxtapose religion against democracy, presupposing inherent antagonism; even those with only a cursory understanding of history can discern instances of their harmonious coexistence. The genesis of these debates, unvarnished by euphemism, can be traced to the Western struggle to "impose" democracy on nations with Muslim majorities. One oft-cited rationale for this challenge is the alleged incompatibility between Islam and democracy, a hypothesis initially confined to Iraq and Afghanistan but gradually permeating discourse on other Muslim-majority nations. This notion, gaining traction over time, has fuelled discussions on the perceived incongruities between Islam and democratic governance.
To provide a fair assessment, it's crucial to acknowledge that Islam did not undergo a crisis of faith analogous to the Reformation of the 15th century. The Ottomans, arguably the most influential Islamic empire, governed their expansive territories by synthesising laws predominantly rooted in Sharia. The Ottoman caliph asserted a divine right to rule, and their empire is nostalgically remembered as a period when Muslims played a prominent role in global discourse. However, with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, its territories were partitioned among the allies, imposing their own legal and administrative frameworks. Upon gaining independence, many of these nations retained these systems, leading to the persistence of a medley of monarchies and republics, although coups and civil unrest eventually transformed several into dictatorships. Interestingly, Islam’s initial principles dictated that its leader should be the most knowledgeable and pious, incorporating a proto-election system where tribal chieftains cast votes to affirm the legitimacy of a caliph. It is essential to note that the subsequent establishment of hereditary monarchy systems superseded this initial approach.
The confluence of dictatorship, mismanagement, and neglect has eroded the trust of many Muslims in various forms of secular governance within Muslim countries. The turmoil marked by the collapse of Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s and the subsequent Arab Spring in the 2010s thrust the democratic agenda into the forefront of public discourse in Muslim nations. In the wake of these events, elections were conducted where feasible, and this presented an opportunity that was seized by Islamists and proponents of an Islamic agenda. They underscored Islam's historical grandeur while critiquing contemporary governance models, with secular democracy as a focal point of criticism. Emphasising the past prowess of the Ottoman Empire in challenging Europeans, they lamented the current reliance of Muslim countries on Western influence and aid. Additionally, they highlighted the achievements of Muslim armies during the time of the prophet, overcoming significant odds, and asserted that prosperity prevailed in Muslim lands under true Islamic rule.
The present-day Muslim masses are captivated by these narratives of past glories and simultaneously find themselves grappling with the harsh reality of a failed system, a struggling society, and ineffective governance brought about by secular governance with a thin veneer of ‘democracy’. They have witnessed the unravelling and subsequent collapse of various forms of secular governments before their eyes and, as a result, approach with scepticism those who pledge the restoration of democracy and human rights. The Muslim populations in these countries are confronted with a dissonance between the alluring and almost hagiographical narratives of a glorious past and the stark failures of current realities and promises.
In contexts where ballots are cast, Muslim masses tend to vote for Islamists or those committed to governing based on Islamic principles. This preference is rooted in familiarity, comfort, and the hope that such governance brings. Elected officials, once in power, find themselves compelled to cater to the desires of their electorates. These electorates often seek a broader implementation of Sharia, a disassociation from Western influence, preferential treatment for individuals of the same faith, and opposition to the legalisation of gay marriage. Examples of this electoral trend include Iraq, where Shia coalitions with ties to Iran were voted in, leading to tensions with the United States; Tunisia, where Islamists gained power after the Arab Spring; Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood was elected; and Malaysia, where the Islamist party came close to victory.
The democratic process, characterised by the principle of one person, one vote, operates as intended in many Muslim countries, reflecting the will of the majority. Within the confines of Muslim countries, their loud minorities, the ones that lost at the ballot box, are usually prominent in their claims of the subverted democratic process, costing them their assured victories but a quick engagement with the majority of the population by a third party will affirm that the silent majority has indeed spoken through the ballot box. The question arises: why is Islam often viewed as incompatible with democracy when the democratic system functions in accordance with its principles in Muslim nations? Similar dynamics are observed in other democracies, such as Israel via the Haredim, the United States via Christian lobbies, and India via devout Hindus. Where religion holds little sway, such as in Europe, predictably, religiously inclined parties often struggle to gain political relevance. The intricate and intertwined relationship between democracy and religion, where religion is relevant, has persisted for centuries.
The perceived conflict between religion and democracy in certain regions appears to centre not on the conceptualisation or execution of democratic ideals but on the divergent outcomes. This was best exemplified in the Iranian elections 2009, where the favourite reform candidate, Mir Hussein Mousavi, lost. Immediate accusations of electoral fraud surfaced from his camp against the incumbent and were gleefully propagated by the Western media, finding support from Western governments who took the charge of electoral fraud at face value. However, what is lost on everyone is the fact that with the Western governments actively taking sides in an Iranian election, it means that Western governments implicitly acknowledge the legitimacy of the democratic process practised in Iran; they only have issues with the outcome of that election, which was the victory of the conservatives.
In places where religion significantly shapes people’s lives, proponents of democracy may struggle to reconcile their expectations with the actual results of the democratic process. Some anticipated outcomes include respect for minority rights, the establishment of pro-Western governments, a departure from conservatism, and the embrace of more liberal economic policies. Failure to meet these expectations is often deemed unacceptable and cast in the light of a subverted or flawed or corrupted democracy, echoing sentiments reminiscent of George W. Bush’s "If you are not with us, then you are against us," underscoring the challenges of aligning diverse cultural and religious contexts with Western democratic ideals.
What is this obsession with "gay marriage" in Islam? Secondly, it isn't explicitly banned in Islam but rather it does not have any formal recognition.
Islam enforces "marriage" as a 'contract' for heterosexual couples who wish to live together, so that women, and the children that follow, receive social rights, legal rights and legal protections. No marriage → no contract → no guarantee of rights.
If "gay marriages" can produce children then Islam will have to recognise that as a legitimate alternative relationship. Until then, it will not receive recognition.