Middle East in Addition to the Tendency

Middle East

In addition to the tendency towards violence in their political systems, Middle Eastern countries are known for their basic lack of stable and democratic regimes. Although many attempts have been made to bring democracy to these nations by means of negotiation or even violence, little has been accomplished by these attempts. At the basis of this phenomenon is a social and political development that spans over centuries. This includes a religious basis upon which politics and the caste system have developed, practically without anything to oppose these systems, over centuries. It is precisely this centuries-long development, specifically, of Islam, as well as the legacy of ancient systems such as the Ottoman paradigm, that creates the difficulty of establishing any sort of democracy in Middle Eastern countries.

Bukay (2007) argues against the possibility for Islam and democracy to exist in the same country. The author notes that several have claimed the opposite to be true; that there is indeed such a possibility. He claims that such authors twist the definitions or bend realities in order to fit their theories, rather than basing their theories upon existing realities and truths. One such example is the claim that democracy is a relative term, while another focuses on bending the realities of life in Muslim countries.

As a specific example, Bukay mentions John L. Esposito, who, with his co-authors, bases his assumptions on claims such as that democracy has many different meanings and can be constructed according to a specific country's beliefs and requirements. Another assumption here is the possibility of a religious democracy.

In response, Bukay (2007) points out that, despite these arguments, no democracy has been evident in any form within the Middle East. This in itself disproves any theories to the contrary. Instead, Bukay provides a critical consideration of the democracy issue and how the Middle East and, specifically, its religious development precludes the possibility of an easy transition to this form of government. Most importantly, traditional Islam and its tenets of ideal government does not allow for democracy.

According to Bukay, one of the main requirements within Islamic politics is that Islamic law should rule all aspects of both political and religious life. While this is already quite far removed from the inherently accepted assumptions of democracy, Islam furthermore does not accept the idea of religious and gender equality among all citizens. Furthermore, citizens recieve no right to decide their laws or vote for officials. These are all fundamental requirements of democracy, regardless of the specific definition attached to the concept. For Islam, the sovereignty of God is paramount, while in democracy, the sovereignty of the people is assumed. The two cannot exist within the same system of government or rulership.

Basically, Bukay's conclusion is, persuasively, that countries that are very traditionally Islamic will not be able to accept the basic values attached to democracy and modernism. The main reason for this is that Islam is the ultimate source of law for these countries. The basic values promoted by such a religious legal system are completely incompatible, and even the opposite of, the concept of democracy in the Western world.

As a final point, Bukay (2007) also notes that language itself serves as an indicator of the inability of Islamic countries to accept the principles of true democracy and equality. With leadership remaining in the hands of the ruling elite, which in turn is patrimonial, coercive, and authoritarian, the language reflects this. There is no word for "citizen" in the traditional versions of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, for example.

The Ottoman legacy can also have an impact on the basic inability of Middle Eastern countries to, for the immediate future at least, accept democracy as a viable political system in their political systems. Heper (2000), for example, also points to the phenomenon of the ruling elite that was inherent in the Ottoman system. At the heart of this system was the concern for the welfare of the state. To ensure such welfare, three "Ruling Institutions" functioned as its guardians: the palace, the civilian bureaucracy, and the military. The members of these institutions were an elite group that set themselves apart from the rest of the country's citizens by following a complicated system of customs, behavior, and language. These were known as the "Ottoman way." From this, it is not difficult to see how Islam took over the sense of bureaucracy and elite leadership.

In both the Ottoman legacy and the Islam system of today, then, there appears to be a separatist system between citizens and the rulership within a country. The rulership functions as a bureaucracy that cannot be defied or decided by citizens. Citizens basically have no political power to wield in their country. Generally, both systems also create a basic separation between genders, making it impossible for democracy to truly function in these countries.