Democracy? Maybe

 by Steven D. Laib  

| View comments |  Print This Post

As Ibn Warraq sees it, the greatest obstacle to democracy and human rights in the Middle East is God.

A recent banner on TownHall.com advertised a pending forum on whether Democracy was possible in the Middle East. The event entitled “Mr. Jefferson Goes to the Middle East” is scheduled for April 5 and 6, 2006 and is sponsored by The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College in Grove City, PA. From the information provided, including the names of experts participating, this probably will be an interesting event. However, one doesn’t have to be an expert to know what the real answer is: Maybe in the future, but certainly not now. This view is supported by the one person who is conspicuous by his absence from this event; Ibn Warraq, who is possibly the person best qualified to provide an objective view of the prospects, based on his immense expertise in the general history and culture of the region.

Democracy, for those who live in democratically governed nations seems axiomatic. You vote on an issue and the majority rules. Maybe the minority isn’t quite satisfied, but they still will have the right of dissent, and also know that at another time they might get their way. In some instances the minority’s wishes are not eliminated, but merely postponed or modified. This cultural fixture appears inherent in our society, and may actually be an outgrowth of the concept of “fairness” that even children recognize as valuable in structuring society.

The Western tradition of Democracy dates to the 5th century BC when it became established in Athens. The Athenian system was a direct democracy, but not everyone was allowed to vote. Other Greek city-states adopted variations on the theme at times. The Macedonian invasion eventually put democracy to rest in Greece. Meanwhile, Rome began experimenting with democratic rule, probably due to the influence of Greek colonies in Italy and the surrounding regions. While the Roman Republic was subject to a large amount of internal dissent and disputation, it did not prevent the Roman Republic from achieving dominance in the Mediterranean region. It should be noted that Rome conquered the majority of the land it controlled before Octavian (later Augustus) assumed power under the Principate, which eventually turned the Roman Senate into a rubber stamp on the Emperor’s position.

The American Democratic tradition dates back to England where the Charter of Liberties, issued by Henry I in 1100 AD was the first document since the Norman Conquest to place limits on royal authority. King Henry issued this proclamation as a result of abuses by his brother and predecessor William II including excessive taxation. The Magna Carta, of 1215 resulted from disputes primarily between King John and the English Barons over royal rights. King John was forced to agree that law could bind the King, and he had to give up certain rights and privileges which severly curtailed any divine rights doctrine.

English democracy was not an immediate institution. It took many years before universal voting rights were accepted, and the monarchy was reduced to more of a figurehead status. Queen Victoria, who died in 1901, was the last English monarch to truly hold authority over government affairs, which gradually eroded during her long reign, leaving the monarch with little more than the power of public support and moral suasion.

American Democracy declared in 1776 and effectively established in 1789 was the product of the train of political process, which began in England. Other democratic movements were in many instances products of the same process. In short, the Western Democratic tradition is the result of hundreds of years of adaptation and re-evaluation of what would best serve the needs of the body politic; the people who lived within that system.

Ibn Warraq, shows us a complete contrast between the above processes, where reason and re-evaluation are the rule and the culture of the Middle East. In his epic analysis of the Islamic system Why I Am Not A Muslim he states that for Muslims “[L]egitimate authority comes from God alone and the ruler derives his power from God and the holy law and not from the people. (page 186) Thus, a subject owed obedience to a ruler as a religious duty, and to be disobedient or even to question the ruler was a crime as well as a sin. So much for government with the consent of the governed. This is more in line with the divine right of kings. As Warraq develops his analysis, it becomes clear that Islam does not recognize rights in man, but only duties. Meanwhile, the laws handed down from divine authority are “perfect” and not subject to analysis by logic, reason or other such processes. This is brought into significant focus in his comparison between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, where he shows that Islamic law makes the declarations in the latter to be essentially bogus. (See pages 184 - 192) His exposition goes on in further and more devastating detail as he examines the authority structure, origins of the legal and governmental systems, etc., essentially showing that reason and intellect are anathema.

The majority of the people of the Middle East have lived without democratic rule for approximately 1200 years, if not much longer. The customs, traditions, and authority structures of that people have ruled out democratic systems as violations of an unquestionable divine will. The result is that regardless of how many elections are held, it will be impossible to achieve a system where government is responsive to the real needs of the people, because the people may well be unaware of those needs, or even in denial of the fact that the needs exist.

As Warraq sees it, the greatest obstacle to democracy and human rights in that part of the world is God. How ironic that reverence for God in the Judeo-Christian sense has been responsible for the acceptance of true human rights and the development of democracy in other cultures.

Constitutional Issues, Civil Liberty & Rights, Culture: Religion, Foreign Affairs: Israel-Palestine

Read more articles by Steven D. Laib