It is generally accepted that the Muslim world has a democracy problem. This is somewhat true, as various attempts at democracy have not succeeded. While the internal inadequacy to foster democratic processes is a significant factor, external interventions also contribute notably to this failure.
The undermining of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) experience in Algeria in 1992, the closure of Milli Gorus parties (MNP, MSP, RP, FP) in Turkey between 1969-1998, the barring of democratic processes in Palestine after Hamas won the 2006 elections, the 2013 military coup against the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the 2021 coup in Tunisia that banned the Ennahda party, along with the arrest of Speaker Rashid al-Ghannushi who refused to form a government or become President are some examples.
The political system remains open to party competition in countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia. While there are no parties in Iran, parliamentary representatives are elected periodically. However, in Algeria and Turkey, the Milli Gorus parties, and in Palestine, Egypt, and Tunisia, movements that combined Islam and democracy were stymied by military coups. Although other countries do hold elections and have parties, autocracy is the defining characteristic of these systems. Malaysia and Indonesia appear to be relatively in a better position.
The suppression of Islamic democratic politics through coups has been either openly supported by the West (Algeria) or met with silence, and as the saying goes, “Silence implies consent.” The EU, led by France, openly supported the Algerian coup. Since 2006, the reason elections have not been held in Palestine is the certainty of a Hamas victory. This shows that the democracy problem in Islamic countries is influenced not only by internal weaknesses but also by external support for dictatorships and autocratic regimes.
While the situation is as such in the Muslim world, it’s also evident that democracy is not trending well globally, notably in Western countries. If the current trend continues, it does not take a soothsayer to predict serious challenges ahead. The issue partly stems from material and socio-cultural transformations on a global scale, but it is also due to democracy’s structural inability to respond to these changes.
An initial observation can be made: the philosophical foundations of Western democracy, from which modern democracy emerged, are in serious decline. Enlightenment thought shaped democracy as a governance model for industrial society, yet society has moved far beyond that stage. When democracy took shape, the West’s historical experiences and socio-cultural structures were markedly different from those of the non-Western world, and these differences have not been fully reconciled. However, democracy theorists have largely ignored these differences.
Perhaps the issue should be approached on two levels: the inherited “religion and democracy” problem, and the new “global transformations and democracy” challenge. No satisfactory solutions have been found for either; at least for Muslim societies, the theological/legal debates on “religion and democracy” remain unresolved, while the transformations driven by globalization continue to intensify.
Republic and democracy
In broad terms, the republic answers “who will rule,” while democracy addresses “how will they rule.” The republic derives sovereignty from the people but defines the people as a “nation-state.” Democracy focuses on how the will of a self-governing people is to be realized. Although it seems simple, the issue is more complex, and debates constantly bring these questions back to the forefront.
1. Since the French Revolution of 1789, we see this debate periodically re-emerging in France: Republic or democracy?
a. Republicans, due to their views on humanity, the state, and Enlightenment, push democracy into the background, asserting that the republic is a historical project aimed at creating a new person. According to them, the republic is an end and the highest value in itself.
b. Democracy advocates, however, support deliberative and participatory democracy. While this is an interestingtopic, unlike pluralism in the U.S., multiculturalism in Europe remains unresolved and is constantly deferred for future debates, especially now as right-wing parties rise in prominence.
2. In Turkey, where French political tradition has had a strong influence, the issue has taken a different form in the new millennium.
a. The root of the issue lies in the Kemalist modernization project’s lack of democracy. Among the six arrows of revolution, democracy is absent. Former CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who vowed to “crown the republic with democracy,” could not achieve this goal. He believed that, above all, forgiveness was needed for the conservative-religious victims of the authoritarian republic. However, while he talked about “forgiveness,” the party’s media supporters, Halk TV, Tele 1, and the traditional CHP base emphasized “retribution,” which contributed to losses in the May 14 and 28 elections.
Naturally, a fundamental difference between the modernization project of Mahmud II–Mustafa Kemal and that of Abdulhamid II–Turgut Ozal deepened the rift between Kılıçdaroğlu and the media and CHP voters. The Mahmud II–Mustafa Kemal project is top-down (anti-democratic), secular, and aims at Europeanization-Westernization, while the Abdulhamid-Özal approach is bottom-up (engaging civil actors), foregrounds religious identity, and considers a non-Western modernization attempt if possible. Kılıçdaroğlu attempted to reconcile the two, which seemed plausible for the moderate sections of both wings but was strongly opposed by the hardcore bases.
3. Turkey has a persistent “religion-state/Islam-democracy” problem in the context of republic-democracy relations, which has yet to be conclusively resolved in Western societies where secularism is thought to be firmly established.
Neither radical secularism nor a return to historical religious political experiences seems capable of solving this issue for Muslim societies. A new paradigm for politics and power is clearly needed.
4. In democratic governance, the people’s will and equal voting rights are fundamental. Yet, without consensus and institutional support, elections may bring autocratic leaders to power.
5. In the Western model, supportive principles and institutions include:
a. Peaceful, periodic transfer of power via elections
b. Separation of powers
c. Rule of law
d. Autonomous institutions
e. Freedom of thought and expression
f. Representation of diverse social groups and competition within a legal party framework
g. Guaranteed opposition rights
h. Protection of minority rights against majority pressure.
6. Although these principles are embedded in constitutions, they often remain on paper and are not implemented effectively.
7. The irony is that when democratic deviations arise, a significant portion of the populace tolerates this, refraining from stopping the shift toward autocracy. In the American experience, civil society, the judiciary, and the media upheld democracy during the Trump era, but it remains uncertain if European counterparts would act similarly.
8. One reason for this is that political values foundational to the early years of the republic (1923-1950) lacked the socio-cultural pluralism needed for democratic governance. Even in Western democracies, political pluralism does not yet fully match socio-cultural diversity, and the rise of right-wing, nationalist parties threatens the existing level of pluralism.
As technology and “necessary economic” decisions increasingly blur differences among parties, genuine distinctions are diminished. Thomas Friedman states, “The difference between political parties is as big as the difference between Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola.” More concerning is the emergence of a small global elite (global oligarchy) who, with scientific and digital advancements, are steering society toward a techno-dictatorship.
9. Social groups with cultural demands feel marginalized, and when they cannot adequately represent themselves in civil and public spheres or gain their fair share of the national income, they view democratic mechanisms as a means to power, while tolerating autocracy when it benefits them.
10. One of the dangers facing democracies in both the East and the West is the populist leaders who subvert the law, appealing to the masses disaffected by liberal capitalism’s inequalities, winning elections, and promoting manipulative, harmful political tactics.
11. While a republic is certainly an advancement over absolute monarchy, without the democratic support that aligns with Islamic principles, it always risks devolving into autocracy, even totalitarianism. In the first quarter of this new century, democracy needs a new social contract emphasizing freedom, moral integrity, the rule of law/justice, and mutual respect among social groups.
12. Western democracies—especially their liberal variations—are in deep crisis. There is a clear need to redefine political culture and power relations from an alternative foundation. Muslim scholars, intellectuals, and thinkers need to develop a new vision of politics, state, and power that critiques democracy without legitimizing monarchies, dictatorships, or autocracies.
Despite its weaknesses, falling behind Western democracies is not an option; a more advanced and global model promoting coexistence, justice, freedom, and security is needed. Thus, a search for a new democratic paradigm begins with a call for “democracy anew.”
