Democracy and Islam
One of the guiding principles for many in the Bush Administration is the neo-Wilsonian concept of democratization. If we can establish a working democracy in the Middle-East, we can give the people an alternative to Jihad, a stake in their own future, and the chance for lasting peace, the thinking goes. To many, Democracy is the answer.
I disagree. First off, I would like to point out that what we are referring to is Republicanism, not Democracy. The Founding Fathers all abhorred Democracy as the fastest way to corruption and eventual tyranny. A Republican system put checks on the rule of the mob, thus offering a stake in society to the many while restricting their coarser appetites. Be it duly noted-early America had numerous restrictions on the Will of the People; only male landholders could vote, the President and Senators were not directly elected, but were chosen via the College of Electors, a non-elected Court Sytem was instituted, etc. This is what the advocates of Democracy are calling for (I hope), not true Democracy.
A Democratic Republicanism presupposes a moral people. This was of great concern to the Founders, that America would be able to keep such a system. The People must vote not out of pure self-interest but out of a moral vision, and in the interest of a higher purpose. They must be moral in their personal lives, willing to forgive slights and work with those they may not like. There has to be a certain consensus, a willingness to accept authority and keep the fighting in the realm of political debate.
Our system was perfectly suited to our pluralistic, Judeo-Christian religious system. Our laws were Biblically based, our willingness to accept those laws was based on a Protestant Christian code of conduct (which emphasized the virtue and moral autonomy of the individual) which in itself was based on the Jewish code of conduct. The multiplicity of Christian religions in America meant everyone had to respect the somewhat different values of others. This, more than anything, allowed our Republic to flourish.
At that, we almost lost everything with the Civil War; America could not work out a moral problem peacably, and the Republic was almost torn apart.
Andrew Bostom has a great piece at the American Thinker which, in my view, illustrates why the argument in favor of Democratization is flawed. Islam, that religion of peace, refuses to allow anyone to leave. If you leave, you die; a pluralistic, democratic system cannot be built where such thinking is predominant.
Islam is incompatible with Democracy. The concept of Seperation of Church and State was instituted to avoid one religious sect from dominating another through the exercise of governmental power-precisely the problem in the Middle-East where Islam allows no competitors. In Islamic societies the Rulers are inseperable from the Religious system, and the idea that they be purely secular is unthinkable. Sharia Law cannot accept the equality of Men (and Women); some are always more equal than others! A non-Moslem is, at very best, a second class citizen (and at worst fair game for oppression and murder.) Women are property. Warfare against the infidel is a high command, and the Koran admonishes the individual to use whatever means necessary. You cannot build an American style system on this foundation!
I don`t disagree with replacing Saddam with a Republic, but I believe this will not be the panacea that the many advocates (such as Rich Lowry at National Review) think it will be; you cannot have such a system without a moral populace, and Islam fails to create the proper moral climate. What must occur for Democracy to work is a breaking of the stranglehold of Islam on this region; other faiths must be allowed to coexist peacefully with Islam. Democracy will fail, unless this occurs.
I disagree. First off, I would like to point out that what we are referring to is Republicanism, not Democracy. The Founding Fathers all abhorred Democracy as the fastest way to corruption and eventual tyranny. A Republican system put checks on the rule of the mob, thus offering a stake in society to the many while restricting their coarser appetites. Be it duly noted-early America had numerous restrictions on the Will of the People; only male landholders could vote, the President and Senators were not directly elected, but were chosen via the College of Electors, a non-elected Court Sytem was instituted, etc. This is what the advocates of Democracy are calling for (I hope), not true Democracy.
A Democratic Republicanism presupposes a moral people. This was of great concern to the Founders, that America would be able to keep such a system. The People must vote not out of pure self-interest but out of a moral vision, and in the interest of a higher purpose. They must be moral in their personal lives, willing to forgive slights and work with those they may not like. There has to be a certain consensus, a willingness to accept authority and keep the fighting in the realm of political debate.
Our system was perfectly suited to our pluralistic, Judeo-Christian religious system. Our laws were Biblically based, our willingness to accept those laws was based on a Protestant Christian code of conduct (which emphasized the virtue and moral autonomy of the individual) which in itself was based on the Jewish code of conduct. The multiplicity of Christian religions in America meant everyone had to respect the somewhat different values of others. This, more than anything, allowed our Republic to flourish.
At that, we almost lost everything with the Civil War; America could not work out a moral problem peacably, and the Republic was almost torn apart.
Andrew Bostom has a great piece at the American Thinker which, in my view, illustrates why the argument in favor of Democratization is flawed. Islam, that religion of peace, refuses to allow anyone to leave. If you leave, you die; a pluralistic, democratic system cannot be built where such thinking is predominant.
Islam is incompatible with Democracy. The concept of Seperation of Church and State was instituted to avoid one religious sect from dominating another through the exercise of governmental power-precisely the problem in the Middle-East where Islam allows no competitors. In Islamic societies the Rulers are inseperable from the Religious system, and the idea that they be purely secular is unthinkable. Sharia Law cannot accept the equality of Men (and Women); some are always more equal than others! A non-Moslem is, at very best, a second class citizen (and at worst fair game for oppression and murder.) Women are property. Warfare against the infidel is a high command, and the Koran admonishes the individual to use whatever means necessary. You cannot build an American style system on this foundation!
I don`t disagree with replacing Saddam with a Republic, but I believe this will not be the panacea that the many advocates (such as Rich Lowry at National Review) think it will be; you cannot have such a system without a moral populace, and Islam fails to create the proper moral climate. What must occur for Democracy to work is a breaking of the stranglehold of Islam on this region; other faiths must be allowed to coexist peacefully with Islam. Democracy will fail, unless this occurs.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:32 AM
3 Comments:
One of the greatest of science fiction writers was the late Lloyd Biggle, Jr.
In one of his series, the interplanetary body had as its motto, its mantra the phrase "Democrary imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny."
Bush and the NeoConservatives and the imperialists (or do I repeat myself?) have a notion that is both elitist and foolish that cultures with no tradition of individualism can suddenly adopt the alien concept of "democracy."
Actually, even the United States, which once did have a tradition of individualism, is striving mightily to renounce democracy, as well as individual freedom.
As just one example of this effort at eradicating democracy, look at court decisions and election officials' decisions and laws such as McCain-Feingold: They all mitigate against wider participation in any electoral process.
They all work to limit political possibilities to, mostly, the incumbents or their closest friends and allies, and certainly to the two old, and corrupt, parties.
If the Bush administration really wanted to try democracy, it would be wise to attempt it first in the United States.
Timothy,
An outstanding post here! You've concisely stated what I believe.
Our Republic can barely withstand attacks from within and we want to export democracy to regions dominated by a primitive relegion that cannot compete? I have to agree with Ann Coulter. She stands by her statement today more than ever,"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Post a Comment
<< Home