Is political Islam a matter for debate? In the aftermath of the ongoing Egyptian revolution, or in the face of the growing feud between Islamist brigades and the National Liberation Army in Syria, it has become intellectually fashionable in Europe, these last weeks, to come back to the question of Islam and politics — generally to conclude that “political Islam is dead”, as recently declared by Egyptian writer Alaa Al Aswani; or worse, to say that Islam is antonymic to democracy.
In an article published in Le Figaro, former British prime minister Tony Blair expressed the view that “for the first time in the Middle East, an open debate has opened about the role of religion in politics”. The reasons why former Egyptian president Mohammad Mursi was ousted, he said, come from the fact that “the Muslim Brotherhood put too much emphasis on religion and not enough on vital social and economic reforms”.
Regarding Egypt, it is a fact that a president was democratically elected and then, overthrown by a revolution, swiftly aided by a ‘kind of a’ military coup. Reasons for that are well known: Deep incompetence, prevarication and nepotism. Being elected once should indeed not let anyone believe that he can be entitled to do whatever he wants. If we try and sum up a few simple thoughts about Islam and democracy, the following, we believe, should gather enough supportive views.
Yes indeed, certain Muslims are totally hostile to any form of democracy, wishing a regional caliphate to be exclusive of all those who do not share their interpretation of faith. The latest assassination of an opposition political leader in Tunisia is a sad reminder of this. Salafists and many members of the Muslim Brotherhood (when not interviewed on TV of course) are representative of this line. The distinction some analysts try to draw between Salafists and the Brotherhood is in this regard is rather pathetic.
“It is the reasoning of the Muslim Brotherhood which gave birth to Al Qaida”, confirmed Dubai Police General Commander Dahi Khalfan Tamim in the summer issue of Politique Internationale magazine. I would think his experience speaks for itself.
Secondly, democracy is not linked to any specific form of political structure — for example the UK, which has a monarchial system, or Sudan, which has a presidential system.
Thirdly, democracy is a way which doesn’t come to fruition overnight — remember the inane American ‘Broad Middle East Initiative’ and its carriage of horrors in Iraq. Actually, democracy starts with giving the people what they need.
Lastly, democracy must find its way between religion and politics. It is a challenge for Islam, as it has been for other religions. Signs are emerging which show a possible way between a Salafist line and a purely secular approach. What is of essence, in the end, is not to make religion instrumental of any political behaviour. Indeed we all know the terms of the usual debate which often amounts to an empty confrontation between those who just can’t understand that one has personal thoughts and beliefs; and those who take pretext of the former to declare that there can be no compromise between Islam and democracy — ‘The impossible wedding’, as was written by French columnist Eric Zemour.
Yet, the challenge is not to give up religion to enter into a so-called ‘democratic universe’, or keep his father’s faith and never penetrate it. It is also not to speak a double language, as professor Tariq Ramadan has proved to be a master of. It is simply to move honestly towards political reforms, at a path matching the one of the underlying society. Yes, all the people in the world are entitled to freedom, justice, security and democracy. They are also eligible for basic economic and social benefits. But as one says, “all the ways lead to Rome” and they are not all the same. Let therefore consensus and compromise build up as to the best way to reach it.
Luc Debieuvre is a French essayist and a lecturer at IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques) and the FACO Law University of Paris.
