Islam and Democracy

In the ongoing debate in France about “republic versus democracy,” a common consensus has emerged: the republic answers the question “who will govern,” while democracy answers “how it will be governed.” If the republic is the foundation, no individual or dynasty can claim exclusive authority; if democracy is the foundation, the people govern themselves. Setting aside some socialists or social democrats, this definition treats democracy as a form of government — or, more simply, as a political technique.

If democracy is a method or technique, it does not embody a worldview or a moral value system tied to a particular way of life. Whatever a society believes or however it chooses to live, democracy does not attempt to replace those values or lifestyles. What matters is that communities — or more broadly, the people — can decide for themselves how they will be governed.

This is precisely where tension may arise between religion and democracy, particularly in the case of Islam. For adherents of a religion that prescribes a consistent way of life, the issue emerges when democracy itself is treated as a system of belief — effectively, a kind of religion. A Muslim who has already chosen Islam as their faith does not wish to add a “religion of democracy” to it, nor to abandon their own for another. In this sense, the “Islam and democracy” debate rests on a false comparison: one side is a religion, the other is a political method. A meaningful comparison can only be made between religions (for example, Islam and Christianity or Judaism) or between political systems (such as democracy and autocracy or totalitarianism).

From this perspective, a debate on “Islam and democracy” is, by definition, misplaced. Religion, by its nature and purpose, offers a system of belief, thought, and conduct. Classical Islamic sources describe this through categories such as aqa’id (beliefs), akhlaq (ethics), ibadat (worship), mu‘amalat (social practices), and ‘uqubat (penal law). In this broad sense, “religion” encompasses not only revealed faiths but also secular doctrines and philosophical schools — even atheism, deism, and agnosticism can be viewed as worldviews with their own belief systems.

If democracy is not a religion, it concerns the decision-making processes and governance mechanisms of politically organized societies. Human beings, by nature, live in social settings and must regulate their relationships through some form of politics.

This understanding implies that parliaments representing majorities have no legitimate authority to enact laws that would fundamentally alter the moral, philosophical, and spiritual values of any community — values that arise from their faith traditions. Sovereignty belongs to whoever holds legislative power; in democracies, that authority ultimately lies with the people. No one today can claim, as Louis XIV once did, “L’État, c’est moi” — “I am the state, I am the law.”

In the Middle East, the real obstacle to democracy is not Islam itself but authoritarian regimes that manipulate religion to promote the idea that democracy is incompatible with Islam. This narrative, often echoed by Salafi movements unaware of its political origins, is financed by monarchies, dictatorships, and autocratic systems. All three reject elections, the rule of law, separation of powers, transparency, and accountability. They view governance as the property of a family, dynasty, or tribe — and once in power, they seek to rule for life.

The misplaced tension between Islam and democracy also stems from attempts to replicate the historical and socioeconomic environment in which Western democracy first developed. In simple terms, democracy — at least in its Western form — emerged from industrial societies as a political system designed to prevent class conflict through constitutional compromise. This understanding is relatively recent, not ancient. In fact, recent research suggests that the true birthplace of democracy may not be Greece, but rather Mesopotamia and the Arabian tribal tradition.

In his book A Short History of Democracy, John Keane notes that in the Mesopotamian model there were two assemblies — one for locals and one for foreigners — both including women in decision-making. In contrast, Athenian democracy excluded both foreigners and women; only free men could participate. Keane even argues that the Greeks borrowed not only the mechanisms of democracy but the very term itself from the Phoenicians, who had inherited it from Mesopotamia. The modern assumption that democracy originated in Greece, he reminds us, comes from a 19th-century merchant’s claim that few questioned at the time — and which has endured ever since.

A closer look at the Arab tribal tradition also reveals deeply democratic norms. The tribal chief was not sacred or divinely appointed; leadership was not hereditary. The chief was primus inter pares — first among equals — and could be removed if he failed to represent the tribe effectively. Decisions were made through rigorous debate in tribal councils. In pre-Islamic Mecca, a larger version of this system existed in the Dar al-Nadwa, which functioned as a parliament — though, admittedly, its members were largely powerful elites and slaveholders.

With the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) mission, a new, covenant-based model was developed in Medina. Building on and reforming the earlier tribal tradition, he introduced a system based on mutual consent and contractual governance — an early form of constitutionalism. I analyzed this in depth in my book The Medina Charter (Ali Bulaç, Medine Sözleşmesi, 2nd ed., Çıra Publications, Istanbul, 2020).

In today’s world, the only surviving and globally recognized model of democracy is liberal democracy — yet it has failed to provide convincing answers to many fundamental problems. Inequality among nations, regions, and social classes is widening. Recently, UN Secretary-General António Guterres marked World Food Day by noting that “673 million people go to bed hungry every night, and many more live in daily uncertainty about their next meal.” Wars, civil conflicts, climate crises, refugee waves, genocide, land grabs, and the rise of xenophobic far-right movements all continue to escalate. Liberals may argue that democracy is not responsible for solving such problems — but if democratic processes and institutions are incapable of influencing them, then what purpose does democracy serve?

Without ignoring its historical contributions, it is fair to say that democracy today faces several deep challenges:

• The tyranny of the minority over the majority. One of the earliest critiques of democracy is that it privileges majority rule. In reality, only about 15% of the world’s population controls 80% of its resources — a global imbalance that favors not the majority but a powerful minority. Constitutions may include clauses to protect minorities from majoritarian injustice, yet in practice, it is often small, manipulative elites who exploit the majority while pretending to speak for them.

• Superficial pluralism. Liberal democracy upholds political pluralism — the right of multiple parties to compete for power — but this does not guarantee socio-cultural pluralism. True pluralism requires legally recognized intermediary institutions between the individual and the state. Without these, democracy risks devolving into what might be called “sophisticated totalitarianism,” where the state monopolizes three vital domains: lawmaking, education, and macroeconomic control.

• Elections without responsibility. The peaceful transfer of power through periodic elections is a historic gain, but it also comes with complications. When democracy reduces politics to the act of voting, it allows figures like Hitler to rise to power through legitimate means. Democracies might therefore need mechanisms to recall leaders who deviate from ethical or constitutional limits.

• Manipulable electorates and populism. Experience shows that voters can easily be manipulated and that populist leaders can stay in power for years. Aristotle called this demagogia — a form of political corruption that opens the way to tyranny.

• Exclusion of the powerless. Many small social groups, representing as little as two percent of the population, can never realistically attain power and are thus excluded from both political and bureaucratic influence.

• Corporate and global domination. The growing power of multinational corporations and ideological lobbies has turned democracy into a tool of the wealthy. This is not the same as legitimate civil advocacy or professional lobbying; it is a structural subversion of popular sovereignty. For example, millions protested Israel’s atrocities in Gaza, yet governments remained unmoved — a sign that public will often carries no weight in official decision-making.

So, what is to be done? Perhaps democracy needs to be reexamined and debated anew — but that would require stepping outside the dominant Western paradigm. Despite its many crises, Western-style democracy remains resistant to external critique, turning itself into a frozen image of a historical moment. Yet in a world defined by constant change — as an Arab poet once said, “the only thing that does not change is change itself” — politics, governance, power, and democracy must evolve alongside human society.