OK, I’ll just dive into this pool of sharks head first. First, let me note that I do not think that a fundamentalist Islamic state would be a good thing. I just would like to discuss it not necessarily being a bad thing.
I know we like the idea of freedom and democracy and apple pie and all that.
When we say “fundamentalist Islamic state”, we picture some authoritarian dictatorship invading every neighbor on a holy crusade (somewhat like how we viewed Soviet Communism).
But say (hypothetically) there was a revolution in say (hypothetically) Saudi Arabia, which brought a fundamentalist Islamic state… with a democratically elected government. This government would not be authoritarian, and would allow those who wish to leave to do so, and vice versa. The government and religious infrastructures would exist side by side, almost as equals. Basically, a state with an official religion and laws supporting that religion’s beliefs.
What would the objection be?
What would the objection be to a similar state under Christianity? Do such states exist now, and how are they viewed? coughIsraelcough
I don’t think most americans would have a problem with that. The problems lies in North Korea situations where there is a risk that the government will act in ways that threaten the rest of the world. The partial democracies of Kuwait and Jordan have elected and removed Islamic leaders before, and nobody cared or got terrified.
Are you sure Israel is a theocracy? Can you give some proof of that?
I think the scenario quite implausible… unless we accept that women not voting is a democracy for example. Human Rights would be a problem too. Clerics get an awful lot of power in these situations… and that isn’t very democratic in itself.
Now if muslims do manage it in a democratic context… I think it might be acceptable.
The difficulty with any true theocracy is that the leaders of that government are operating under the impression that whatever they do, it must be god’s will, so no one can question their actions. Sound familiar?
I think Iran is the closest example to this. They have an elected gov’t that exists side by side with the religious theocracy. They have universal sufferage. They haven’t invaded anybody. In fact one can see an effort to carefully divide power in the way the gov’t is set up. The Council of Guardians, for example, is made up of 6 memebers appointed by the elected parliment and 6 memebers appointed by the clerics.
Of course the problem is that recently theocracy seems to exert a lot more power over the democratically elected gov’t then vice versa, and has used this power to quash reformers.
That’s a good point, thanks. I hadn’t thought of that.
Well, here’s the problem with, say, a democratic Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis are - hold your breath in shock - Muslims. While I’m sure most of them wouldn’t elect a theocratic dictatorship, the government they would elect would reflect, largely, their religious doctrine.
Yes democracy can work with Islam. I would say the majority of Islamic countries are at the very least ‘partial’ democracies where there is an electorate but the final say goes to the monarch/military leader/etc.
Iran is not really a good example of an Islamic democracy. They are rated near the bottom of the barrel in regards to civil and political freedoms according to freedom house, earning a 6 and 6 out of 7 for these things. 7 is the worst, 1 is the best. THey are also authoritarian, arresting and beating dissidents all the time. They disqualified thousands of politicans for not supporting the religious doctrine in the last election. They are not a good example of Islams intermarriage with Democracy. I would assume something like Jordan would be a better example of an Islamic democracy, or Mali.
Actually, upon some further reading I’m going to say that Iran is an Islamic democracy. While the theocracy has been putting the quash, recently, on the elected part of gov’t, the fact is that the theocracy is itself elected or appointed by people that are elected. So while the Council of Guardians can affect who is elected to the parliment, the Council of Guardians are themselves (rather indirectly) chosen by the people.
No doubt that Iran is not an good example of a an islamic country with great civil rights, but you can have an authoritarian democracy. If the people vote for laws that involve beating dissidents, its still democracy.
As for the disqualified politicians, they were disqualified by people who (as far as I can tell) were indirectly elected.
True, Iran has some elements of democracy. But it’s certainly not truly democratic by any measure. And it’s not truly fundamentalist, compared to some Muslim beliefs.
It’s entire gov’t is (again, as far as I can tell) directly or indirectly elected via universal sufferage*. That is, to my understanding, the deffinition of a democracy.
I don’t know enough to say if they’re fundamentalist or not, though the seem pretty fundamentalist to me
*In theory anyway. No doubt the elections are ripe with fraud. But the same holds for a lot of democracies (looking at you FL)
Well, first it was only landowners, then white men, then white men and a few lucky black men, then women… but we eventually got there. Only took us 150 years.
And we expect Iraq to do it in… how much time is left? 3 months? 2 months?
Yes, there’s elections for the Iranian parliament. But above them are the unelected councils who approves all parliamentary candidates, and at the top remains Ayatollah Khameni. (The councils also both mediate disputes, and advise Khameni on disputes, at the same time :dubious: )
Basically, having one elected element doesn’t make a govenmenr democratic, if they are subordinate from before being elected to the time they leave office.
True, Iran has some elements of democracy. But it’s certainly not truly democratic by any measure. And it’s not truly fundamentalist, compared to some Muslim beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
Which of course begs the question of just how you ( the broader “you” - not necessarily GM ) define “fundamentalist Islam.”
Velayet-e Faqih-style Imami Shi’ism ( i.e. Khomeini’s creed ) is certainly less oppressive in many ways than Saudi-style Wahhabism, but it is still theocratic by definition. Is that enough for it to be considered fundamentalist?
I think a democratic, but still explicitly Islamic regime could certainly exist. An Iran shorn of its theocrat executive and with a vastly scaled-back, but still extant Guardian Council ( limited more to a U.S. Supreme Court level of influence ) would probably qualify. Whether it could exist as such long-term in the face of a modernizing and possibly secularizing population is a more interesting question that I have no answer to.
As far as I can make out from Wikipedia, parlimentary candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians. Half this council is appointed by the parliment (thus the appointees of an elected body). The other half is selected by the Supreme Leader (Khameni), who is himself selected by the elected Assembly of Experts. Thus the second half of the Council are appointees of an apointee of an elected body.
So the entire gov’t is selected directly or indirectly by the people. Some are barred from running by those already in office, but elections in all democracys are regulated by the existing gov’t. For example, the Pennsylvania gov’t won’t let Nader on the ballot.
Well, apart from anything else, Google quickly showed that the Second Assembly of Experts can only consist of clerics. Which is surely undemocratic by any measure. (Unless there’s an election to choose who becomes a cleric :wally )
Not quite - half are selected by Khamene’i, half are selected by Parliament from a group pre-approved by the heads of the judiciary ( themselves appointed by Khamene’i ). So really all twelve members of the Guardian Council are his handpicked candidates. The problem is that this system was heavily gerrymandered by Khomeini and has continued to be so since his death. Khamene’i wasn’t chosen for theological merit, but rather hand-selected by Khomeini on the basis of his political reliability. His appointment is for life, his power is vast and in practice he will determine his own successor just as Khomeini did, as the Supreme Leader is chosen by the Assemby of Experts, whose qualifications for election are vetted, again, by the hand-picked Guardian Council ;).
Iran is a true theocracy, the only true theocracy currently in existance, really. It has a thriving democratic underbelly, but the theocratic elements hold ultimate power.
) define “fundamentalist Islam.”