Introduction:

In order to answer the topic question, I have investigated social, economical, religious and political conditions of societies, considered to be necessary to initiate, develop and maintain the democratic ideals. I have listed them as the ‘necessary conditions’ for democracy. For verification and benchmarking, I have briefly reviewed the political journeys of two countries for their endeavor to achieve democracy. The countries I chose are England and France. Finally, I have surveyed the cultural and religious conditions that exists today in the Muslim world. I find that the conditions, which are necessary to support democratic system of government do not exist in Muslim countries, hence the reason for absence of democracy. I have stated my opinion about the reasons for the these conditions to be absent in Muslim countries. Four Appendices are also attached for further discussion and elaboration of some of the points.  

1.   Democracy

The concept of democracy was introduced by the ancient Greeks about 200 BC. This represents the type of a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as opposed to a form of government controlled by a single class, a family or an (autocrat) individual.  

By the term democracy we mean the kind of government system we see in most Western countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France etc. The democratic principles hinge on what is called a “social contract”. The concept of which was introduced in 17^th century in England by philosophers Hobbs and Locke. By social contract they meant an agreement or covenant by which the people of a state are said to have abandoned the "state of nature" or a “state of anarchy” to form a society in which they live according to some mutually agreed upon rules, regulations and obligations. 

By adapting the social contract, the members of the society surrender their natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state. The social contract is the basis of the advocacy of popular sovereignty, the notion, that the ruling party or the  government must reflect the will of the people.  

The key elements of a democratic government system are the basic human rights and freedom, justice, equality and security for the members of the society. In a nutshell, a democratic system of government would have the following four characteristics at a minimum: 

• A political system to elect and replace the government through a free and fair elections.
• Protection of human rights and dignity of all citizens irrespective of their religion, race, gender, or political association.
• A rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
• Provision for citizen participation in politics and civic life.

It has been however, recognized that in practice, democracies do have specific limits on specific freedoms. In democratic theory, the common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence and continuation of democracy. This indeed is an important consequence of the social contract as it is adopted by giving up state of nature or anarchy, which is a small price to pay to gain many other benefits. 

The opponents of the notion of limits often claim about the free speech that allowing free speech for the opponents of free speech logically undermines free speech. These are often the people who ignore the fact that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, as there is no such thing as absolute freedom without plunging back into a state of anarchy.  

It may be interesting to note that a republic is distinguished from a true democracy in that the republic operates through a representative assembly elected by the citizens at large, while in a democracy the populace participates directly in governmental affairs. In view of this, most modern representative governments today are closer to a republic than a democracy.  

This topic of discussion is not about the democracy itself but an inquiry into the reasons as to why most Muslim countries do not have democratic governments. Before we can attempt to answer this questions, we will have to establish the requirements or the conditions necessary to set up a democratic government system and then study the actual conditions that exist in the Muslim countries. 

This is what Churchill said about democracy: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others   that have been tried." 

2.  The Conditions for Democracy

In order for democracy to take root and maintain its existence, the society must support and maintain certain conditions for the sustenance of the democratic system. The experience tells us that a society must be ready to accept and support most of these conditions as a basic requirement for the democracy to flourish. A list of such conditions is as follows: 

a)      Free press (freedom of criticism of the government and its performance without  negative repercussions. It is important for the transparency of the government and its effectiveness) 

b)      Public Education (the middle class is often thought to be the backbone of any society as it is the link between the elites and the working class majority of a country. A highly educated large percentage of middle class and some education for working class is highly desirable) 

c)      Functioning civil institutions (the civil institutions are necessary to run the business of the state on day to day basis without undue individual frustrations that may lead to collective dissatisfaction of the society)

d)      Free elections (A democratic system cannot be conceived without the provisions of free elections, whereby, the citizens are free to not only elect a government but also can remove it from power if and when required) 

e)      Pluralism (affirmation and acceptance of diversity of social and cultural background of the citizens. The presence of cultural conflicts is an indication of absence of pluralism in a society. Pluralism is a requirement for a peaceful co-existence of citizens of various backgrounds and indirectly for supporting democracy) 

f)       Respect for law and rule of law (It is not ever perceivable for a society to operate smoothly unless a respect for law exists and unless, it is the same law applied to all under similar conditions. In the absence of this requirement, and an independent judiciary. the society will have nothing but anarchy and chaos) 

g)      Freedom from oppression (The equality of its citizens is judged by the lack of oppression of a given class or group of citizens of a society) 

h)      External political pressures (External influences can play a havoc in a society by adding to its internal political tribalism and hence causing the chaos, driving society further away from the point of meeting minimum requirements to implement rule of law and fairness to achieve democracy) 

i)        The elites commitment to democracy (In a society, where the elites are not in favor of democracy, it is almost impossible for the middle and the working classes to bring about the change and create environment suitable for democracy) 

j)        Secularism and freedom of religion (Unless all citizens follow the same religion with absolutely no conflicts. This requirement is especially very pertinent to Islamic countries) 

k)     Freedom of association (The right to form and organize political parties is the first and the most important step towards establishing a democratic system. The freedom of association provides free and open debate on issues and problems facing a society) 

3.    The European Case Studies

Today we see almost all the European countries enjoying democracies. Many countries acquired democracies after struggling for centuries, not without bloodshed in some cases. During the middle ages, the European countries existed with socio-economic and political conditions similar to what we see in most Muslim countries at the present time.

The Europeans, especially the western Europeans were the first to introduce industrialization. The Industrialization reduces the concentration of political resources in fewer hands and creates an environment of dispersed power base. Towards the end of the middle ages, the people in the industrialized countries gained the means to organize themselves on a national scale, which had been only possible for the elites in the past. The movement from rural to urban centers affected the old feudal system in reducing the control of local or regional elites, lords or barons.  

Due to industrialization, the societies became more affluent and educated, the new conditions gave rise to political interest groups. The industrialization transformed the old coercion-intensive regions into capital-intensive regions. The peasant culture was slowly transforming into artisans and skilled workers. The changing social and economic conditions slowly created the conditions (listed in section 2) which are essential to support democratic systems.  

A brief history of creation of democratic societies in two European countries is presented in the following sections, 3.1 and 3.2. England managed to achieve this without much bloodshed but France went through several bloody revolutions to achieve democracy. England and France are often said to be at the opposite nodes of socio-economic development struggle. Up to about 17^th century, both countries had coercion-intensive type socio-economic conditions for about 90% of the population.

3.1     England – a brief political history of last two centuries

In England the parliamentary system was introduced in the 13^th century. This parliament was nothing more than a few hand picked crony Lords and Dukes to support the king. The masses hardly had any say in the state affairs. 

England, being an island, was not directly threatened by the European warfare during the middles ages. The English kings therefore, could not justify large armies, hence it was difficult to centralize authority. Mid 17^th century was the crucial period between the English state and the parliament. The parliament and the English gentry did not approve of king Charles I  marrying a Catholic French princess. Soon after that the king further added to his problems when he tried to impose Anglican religion in Scotland during 1630s which caused the Scottish rebellion. A civil war followed, consequently, Charles I was hanged. 

The royalty was eventually restored and Charles II became the monarch in 1660. This however, did not end the tug of war between the king and the parliament. Charles II was inclined towards Catholicism, also admired absolute power enjoyed by his French counterpart, Louis XIV. In 1662, in order to support war against the Dutch in alliance with Louis XIV, the king stopped the interest payments on debts. The war was already being seen as dubious and pointless by the parliament and the gentry of the country. Putting a stop to the interest payment was seen as a threat to liberties and perhaps the end of the parliament. The friction between the parliament and king Charles II as well as his brother, the next king, James II continued until 1689 when James II was deposed and William III took the reigns of England.  

William III helped to preserve the power sharing between the monarch and the parliament. These undertakings firmly established a constitutional monarchy in which the authority to make policy rested on the consent of the parliament. The procedure for electing members of parliament required refinement. Although the system was far from perfect but it continued for another 100 years.  

Towards the end of the 18^th century, during the reign of George III, many members of the parliament tried to introduced further refinements of the political system. The names behind these movements are, John Wilks, John Cartwrit, Richard Price and Joseph Priestly. 

John Wilks formed an association of ‘Supporters of the Bill of rights’. He introduced the first bill in 1776, but these bills did not pass for another half a century. Wilks was elected three times as a member of the parliament, but the parliament would not let him take his seat in the house of commons.  

In 1776, Richard Price discovered that only 5723 persons elected half of the members of house commons. In 1780, William Pitt, the Prime Minister, gave his support to the newly introduced refinement bills.  

By this time, the French revolution had started and the American colony had declared its independence. The men of artisan class were also politically aroused and wanted to see improved civil liberties and freedoms. Riots took place in London and other major centers. These internal and external developments had a profound catalytic effect on the monarchs as well as the nobility of England. In 1832, after years of public pressure, the first Reform Bill was passed. As a consequence of this bill a large number of smallest old boroughs were abolished and the seats were given to new industrial towns. The electorate grew from 500,000 to 813,000. 

The parliamentary system was still far from a representative democracy, but the latest bill was an important milestone for future reformations. After this bill, two parties were created, Liberals and the conservatives, which have been alternatively dominating the parliament ever since. In 1870, The Liberal party and working class organizations managed to further extend the suffrage.  

In 1918, universal male suffrage was adopted and the women over 30 were also given the right to vote. It took well over six centuries for the English parliamentary system to attain the democratic values that we see today.  

3.2     France - a brief political history of last two centuries

The historians are not in full agreement with each other about what started the French revolution in 1789. But there is a general agreement that by mid 18^th century, the social and political changes were not in step with intellectual development of that time. King  Louis XVI was an absolute monarch, the privileged groups, the nobility and the clergy  had stronghold on the government while the working classes were taxed heavily.  

The 17^th and 18^th centuries are often considered the period of Enlightenment. During this time period, new scientific discoveries were made, new social, economical and political thoughts were put forward. Well known French philosopher and historian, Voltaire, who died 10 years before the start of the revolution, had profoundly inspired the political and philosophical thought of 18^th century France. On shortcomings of French political system and its government, Voltaire wrote: 

“In general, the art of the government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give it to the other”. 

Before the revolution, French population was divided into three social groups; First Estate, the clergy, Second Estate, the nobility, Third Estate, the rest of the population.

The First Estate was about 1% of the population with 10% of the land and lots of social and legal privileges. They levied tax on the peasants. The Second Estate was about 5% of the population with about 20% of the land, also had the privileges to tax the peasantry.  

The French Revolution was a lengthy period of anarchy and terror, the blood shed started in 1792. The poor economical conditions turned the masses against the king Louis XVI. Thousands of people were executed including the king and his wife along with many priests and nobles. A new constitution was introduced that established the first French Republic. The republic however, lasted for only four years as a consensus among the different revolutionary groups could not be reached.  

Napoleon Bonaparte took control in 1799. The French state was at the brink of total collapse, the popular government had failed. The country was at war; Napoleon controlled the country with authoritarian rule. He abolished all Estates, privileges, legal classes and manors. All citizens had the same civil rights; the reform to the legal system was the main theme. The state structure created by Napoleon, survived the whole 19^th century. After a turmoil of the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, it took the country another half a century of uprisings, coups and riots to reach at a workable consensus for the rules of the domestic politics. 

After the accession of Louis XVIII in 1824, the Royalists started to kill the republicans and the supporters of Napoleon. The situation turned from bad to worse when Louis XVIII died in 1824 and was succeeded by his brother Charles X who regarded himself as an absolute monarch. He quickly started taking action against republicanism and constitutionalism. This triggered another Revolution that started in 1830. Charles X eventually escaped to England. The republicans immediately brought the popular democracy back. The right to vote was still based on the ownership of a considerable size of real estate. 

By 1848, the radicals further pressed for a republic and a universal suffrage, the king Louis Philippe refused to introduce any changes or grant any concessions. One more time, the Revolution broke out and the king fled to England. Once again, the revolutionaries could not reach an agreement about the basic rules of the politics. This struggle caused a three day war in the streets of Paris in June 1848 between 20,000 workers and the army. This caused death of 10,000 people.  

After the ‘Bloody June Days’ a liberal coalition set about drafting a new republican constitution, with strong executive powers in the hands of the president to be elected by universal ‘male’ suffrage. Louis Napoleon, the nephew of the great Napoleon. Like his great uncle, he was not a big fan of democracy. Not long after he gained power, he dissolved the parliament and declared himself the emperor of France with the title of Napoleon III. His rule lasted for 18 years, until after France was defeated by Prussia. Once again a civil war broke out, parliamentary system was finally restored. A republic was established with the parliament to be fully sovereign and to be elected through universal suffrage. 

3.3   A Discussion of the Case Studies

The foregoing examples of the journeys of England and France in order to establish democracy is a clear evidence that it can take a long time to bring about the desired political changes in a society. It took England about 600 years of slow and steady struggle while it was a 100 year struggle for France through several bloody revolutions to establish a modern democratic system of government. The powerful elites often have their own personal agendas which they are reluctant to sacrifice by sharing the power and wealth with the general public. Once a tradition has been established, the change is always difficult to bring about. Once a system has taken root, it is often a difficult task to uproot it. It requires a long time to create favorable conditions to introduce the desired change.  

From the two case studies as well as a general observation from other European countries, we can conclude: 

§  The industrialization transformed the old coercion-intensive regions into capital-intensive regions. 

§  Due to industrialization, the societies became more affluent and educated, the new conditions gave rise to political interest groups. The peasant culture was slowly transforming into artisans and skilled workers.  

§  The changing social and economic conditions slowly created the conditions that are essential to support democratic systems. 

§  The elites are always reluctant to share the power. Without their cooperation and willingness the change process becomes very difficult and may lead to violent reactions or revolutions. 

§  Public awareness and education is an important factor to identify the issues and to keep up a  persistent pressure on the authorities for the demands. 

§  The introduction of changes in social and political culture is a slow process that may take decades or centuries to accomplish the desired goals. 

§   Different societies may have unique set of circumstance that need to be overcome to establish a democratic system. The ethnic and religious disparities are often the major factors against achieving a common political goal.  

4.  The Current Cultural Conditions in Muslim Countries

In this section a review is presented to survey the prevailing social, economical, political and religious conditions that currently exist in Muslim countries. These conditions directly affect the ability to achieve democracy.  

What is Islam’s position on the type and style of government system to run a state? There is no simple and easy answer to this question. In fact, there are almost as many answers as there are Muslims. Since the Muslim world is not monolithic in its ideology, the views given by various Muslim scholars are mostly divergent. This is not necessarily an indication of a flaw in Islam but clearly a flaw in the interpretation and understanding of Islam and its doctrine.  

The concept of shria (Islamic Jurisprudence) has added another dimension of confusion and frustration for the Muslim world. The Muslim scholars have not been able to agree on the contents of shria law. In reality, the shria represents not only Quran and Sunnah but also the local culture and social values of the followers. The religious confusions and sectarian disparities may not be the main cause of creating impediment to the establishment of democracy, they are however, very important factors which  cannot be ignored. As a result of this dilemma a large number of Muslims are unable to support a secular government but at the same time they fail to propose a practical alternative. (See Appendix 1 and 2 for further discussion on this subject).  

Other factors such as low literacy rate, poverty, the feudal system, absolute monarchies and political instabilities that exists in most Muslim countries are also important factors that do not allow for the desired conditions (as listed in section 2, above) and the required political culture to exist which are essential for democratic system to take root.  

Almost all countries and regions which are identified as the Muslim lands today, had been colonized by the Europeans, mostly by British, French or the Dutch for long periods of time during the last couple of centuries. This is the period when the technological revolution took place, but the Muslims under the colonial rule missed the opportunity to take part in this development. The colonial rule ended mostly around mid 20^th century. The industrial revolution that took place during 18^th and 19^th centuries had a profound effect on the socio-economic and political culture of the societies that took part and benefited from it.  

The Middle East countries were part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire had been in decline during the 18^th and 19^th centuries. This is the period when life in several European countries was improving due to the industrial revolution but life in Ottoman Empire was regressing in the opposite direction. After WWI, the Middle East region was taken over by the British and the French who carved the region into small chunks and installed sheikhs of their own choice to establish sheikhdoms. Consequently, the region is run on lines of centuries old feudal system by the monarchs with absolute power. Although most of these countries are economically affluent due to the oil revenues but the public does not enjoy the freedom of association or free press, which are essential requirements for democracy.  

The political conditions in the Middle East countries at present are hardly any better than a typical colonial rule as the public has no political and civil rights which are, in fact, essential parts of Islamic ideology. The monarchs and their supporting elites strongly argue that Islam and democracy are opposite poles. In fact the imperial legacy in most Middle East countries is the single biggest obstacle against democracy. Although social values are changing slowly, the Arabs are becoming aware of modern political thought but in view of the stronghold of the ruling elite in the Middle East, one can safely assume that most Arab states will be the last ones to become democratic. 

Outside the Middle east, the countries which have experienced many generations of colonial rule, are now being run by the local elites and landlords. The foreign colonial masters have now been replaced by the local feudal lords. The associated tribalism and patriarchal social system seems to help maintain conditions which support the autocratic rule to sustain the coercion intensive environment keeping the power in the hands of few elites. In reality, in most of these countries, the masses are still undergoing through the same social and cultural conditions that they had under colonial rule.  

To put it in a nutshell, the Muslim countries are suffering from the poor governance, greedy ruling elite, low literacy rate, technological backwardness and to top it all the  religious confusions and misconceptions raised by the clerics who do not even agree with each other on religious matters.  

5.       The Missing Political Culture in Muslim Countries

In section 2 above, a list of conditions is given, some of those conditions are essential, while others are highly desirable and complimentary to establishing a democratic government system in a society. Let us consider each condition and review its implications on Muslim countries. 

5.1   Free Press  

Many Arab states are run by monarchs with absolute power, free press is perhaps the last thing that will be allowed in those societies. During various army rules in Pakistan and during Suharto’s 32 years autocratic rule in Indonesia, there was hardly a free press. At present, although Pakistan is only a quasi-democracy, but the press is enjoying freedom that it never did before. It is a healthy sign indicating that the country may soon be a full democracy. 

5.2  Public Education

Educated public is an important asset for any society’s progress and development. Although having educated public by itself is not enough while many other important desirable conditions are missing. For example, most oil rich Muslim countries have a higher literacy rate but those states are far from establishing a democracy. Bangladesh has a literacy rate of only about 35% but many other desirable conditions are present and the country has democratic government system. Unlike Pakistan, the ethnicity problem does not exist here.  

The student demonstrations played an important role in introducing Democracy in Indonesia. 

5.3   Functioning Civil Institutions

Today, perhaps all countries, democratic or otherwise have some kind of civil institutions that run the state business to serve its public. But the amount of red tape experienced in many countries is an indication of social, cultural and economical problems. The quality of civil service also indicates the existence or absence of corruption and element of dishonesty, which often becomes an impediment to achieve democratic values. The bribery and cronyism go hand in hand with poor economical conditions and lack of desirable traditions. This is a typical ‘after-effect’ symptom observed in all countries which have been under colonial rule.  

The role of civil service in colonial rule is exactly opposite to that required in a free and democratic society. In colonial rule, the civil service is created to serve the colonial masters and not the public. After the end of the colonial rule, it has been observed in almost all the (previously) colonized societies, that the civil service has failed to assume political neutrality. The civil servants continue to hold the old colonial ideology and consider themselves the sate officials, above the law rather than the public servants of their country. 

5.4    Free Elections

This is of course one of the important requirement for establishing democracy. The societies which have been run under autocratic conditions under monarchs, kings or colonial rulers do not find it easy to hold free elections even when the authorities may have appeared to allow it. There are often feudal lords, land lords and elites who do not wish to share power and authority. These rogues have enjoyed an unchallenged authority for years, naturally free and fair election cannot be expected to bring an outcome favorable to them. 

A free election may not be a guaranty towards achieving democratic system but it is certainly a step in the right direction. The problem is not limited to Muslim countries only. For example, there were free elections in Russia during recent years, but the political system can hardly be considered democratic. (The old KGB elites are finding it hard to let it go). 

After a break of 22 years, when the king of Jordan allowed to hold a free election in 1989, the result was not favorable to him. Muslim brotherhood and other Islamists took 42% of the seats. The next time around, in 1993, the rules were changed such that those who favored democracy won only 25% seats. 

5.5     Pluralism

Affirmation and acceptance of diversity of social and cultural background of the citizens is an important requirement for a healthy and peaceful society. The absence of pluralism is an indication of chaos and infighting of a society. When the minorities are small in number, this requirement does not affect the establishment of democracy. For example, India has not demonstrated a high level of pluralism but it has still managed to maintain a democracy. In Pakistan, it is currently extremely hard to achieve a desirable level of pluralism due to provincialism, tribalism and ethnic problems. The soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980s not only created instability in that country but also had numerous negative impacts on Pakistan that has challenged the  pluralism. 

5.6    Independent judiciary and rule of law

In a colonial setup, the notion of law and rule of law exists on minimal basis. The rules and regulations are devised and implemented only to the extent to maintain peaceful conditions necessary to maintain the colonial rule. The civil servants and the judiciary is not really expected to dispense rule of law, they only create a deception and a charade to make it appear as if rule of law is being observed. After all, the colonial rule by itself is unlawful, illegal and immoral. After the end of the colonial rule, the elites responsible for the law and order are often the biggest law-breaking culprits themselves. The general public continues in a state of helplessness for decades as they had been under the foreign colonial rule in the past. In the societies which have been politically molested for decades, the lack of respect for rule of law is often the biggest factor that keeps the democracy at bay.  

5.7  Freedom from oppression

Oppression of ordinary public is a typical characteristic of a colonized society. Typically, the colonial masters hand pick the locals from the colonies to act as the feudal lords to control and oppress the colonized public. This practice is carried out through the life of the colonial period. This practice is carried out even after the colonial rule has ended. The oppressed public often requires decades to organize political associations and parties to fight the oppression. Low literacy rate and poor economic conditions work in favor of corrupt elite who would continue to oppress, hence little chance for democracy. 

5.8     External political pressures

This is a well known fact that the Amirs and Sheikhs of the oil rich Middle East kingdoms have support from the US and the British governments. In order to change the political culture, the public of these states will have to fight not only the ruling elites but the external forces as well. That will be beyond the capability of most nationalistic groups.  

Iran’s elected government was removed from power by CIA in 1952 and replaced by its puppet, (see Appendix 3 for related details of external influence) the Shah, who ruled until 1979 when he was deposed by the Mullahs. He had autocratic rule with the help of the US. In order to keep Iran from forming an Islamic nationalistic government, the US helped Saddam Husain to take control of Iraq as its president in 1979. For the next decade Saddam received arms including chemical weapons to wage war against Iran. This affected both countries, not just in terms of blood shed but also in terms of setback to internal reforms and made them financially weak.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, not only destroyed Afghanistan, but Pakistan has been a victim as well. The US sponsored an international jihad in the Muslim world and encouraged volunteers from Muslim countries. Thousands of Muslims from many countries including Osama bin Laden, flocked to Pakistan, where US-funded training camps were set up. But once the Soviets were defeated, both Afghanistan and the mujahideen were dropped like hot potatoes. The jihadi mentality, which was created to fight against the Soviets has now become a headache for Pakistan. The Taliban mentality is now rampant in Pakistan which has become an impediment to democratic developments.

The US and Israel are trying to weaken Hamas in Palestine where the party has won elections fairly. The latest news at the time of this writing is that now Canada has decided to distance itself from Hamas. So much for the Western support for democracy.

5.9      Elites’ commitment to democracy

The single most important requirement to establish a democracy is the commitment and the willingness of the elites of the society to bring about this change. We have seen in the European historical examples, the elites are always reluctant to share their power and privileges with others. They would like to hang on to the power as long as they can. Today, the elites in various Muslim countries are hanging on to the power. These rogues do not believe in building a nation but they would rather build a strong circle of personal friends and family to keep the democracy at bay for as long as they can.

At the time of partition of Indian subcontinent in 1947, The Indian elites, Nehru and Gandhi, did the right thing to start off on the right foot and started an excellent example of democracy for that country. It is generally speculated that Jinnah would have done the same for Pakistan if he had lived for another few years.

In the oil rich sheikhdoms, the rulers have failed to recognize the fact that their true strength lies in the strength of their people. These rulers have taken no step towards nation building, even such thoughts are strictly suppressed, the suggestion of a democratic system is frowned upon. In these states, the religion is often used as a scapegoat to discourage suggestions about democracy. The rulers, due to their self-serving motives declare that democracy and Islam are not compatible with each other.

Among Muslim countries, Turkey is a good example where the Democracy was introduced by the elite.

5.10    Secularism and freedom of religion

The religion and sectarian issues in any society can become a major obstacle in the establishment of democratic system. As has been discussed above, the Muslim scholars and clerics have extremely divergent views about relationship of religion and state. Unless all citizens follow the same faith without any conflicts with each other, the religion and state must be kept separate. The citizens should have freedom to practice any religion, also they should have freedom from it if they do not wish to follow any faith. The relationship of religion and state is generally least understood by Muslims and its clerics. Many religious leaders deliberately keep the public confused to further their own agendas. Collectively, the religious issues become an additional impediment factor against achieving a democratic system for the state. Please see Appendix 2 for further reading on this subject. 

5.11    Freedom of association

The right to form political parties and the freedom to hold public debates to discuss the issues and problems of a society is an important step towards democracy. Most Muslim countries (with the exception of the oil rich sheikhdoms) have the political parties. The mere existing of parties by themselves may not be enough to bring about changes when many other desirable conditions (section 2) are absent. 

6.    The Concluding Remarks

A democratic system requires sharing the power and the privileges with the ordinary citizens. Also, the system requires the election of the rulers through votes of the ordinary people of the society. In a democracy, every one is equal in the eyes of law, no one has more rights than others. With these being the ground rules, it is not surprising that the elites who have enjoyed the privileged positions for so long would be reluctant to give up power and control.  

We have seen the evidence of this from the historical case studies presented above, also we see similar behaviors of the elites in all those countries which had been under colonial rule for several generations. The low literacy rate and general poverty conditions further help these elites to keep the masses subdued. 

The misconceptions about Islam and democracy could well be one of the factors serving as an impediment. While the Muslim clerics are unable to agree with each other, the ruling elite are selfishly maintaining the status quo. As a consequence, the Muslims every where are suffering due to lack of political progress affecting life in all other areas. For Muslims, the education in Islamic matters in view of Ijtehad is as important as in business, science and technology. (See Appendix 4 on Ijtehad) 

The educated citizenry is another important requirement to move towards achieving democracy. But, the public education depends on the presence of industry or other sources to create wealth for all to share and to support the required infrastructure to provide education. With a socio-economic structure, that provides job opportunities to all citizens and a politically stable environment, people tend to live and work together with greater harmony, mutual respect and understanding even if the population comes from an ethnically diverse background.  

The question of religion and its impact on public thinking and behavior is an important factor in the context of Muslim countries. Again, the matter of education is an important consideration, the religious knowledge along with general education, in order to understand and place all factors in proper perspective to draw meaningful conclusions. Since the religious thought is found to be very inhomogeneous in most Muslim countries, the religion must be kept separate from the state affairs. Alas, the clerics would not allow that, hence the inability to set up a democratic system.   

The conditions which are essential to support democracy are missing in most Muslim countries. This is due to the historical events during the last couple of centuries and the negative influence of the clerics on the cultural and political issues. As a result, the following conditions exist, that keep democracy from taking root. 

1) The monarchs and the ruling elite do not want to give up the power they have enjoyed for so long.

2) The religious leaders are an impediment in the development of democracy.

3) In most Muslim countries the freedom of speech and association is absent.

4) Poor economical conditions exist in most Muslim countries due to lack of industrial infrastructure.

5) Lack of literacy, due to poor economy. 

In view of the fact that the Muslim nations have been under colonial rule for several generations, the present state of affairs is only natural and should have been expected.  

What is the solution to these problems in the Muslim states and how to get out of this rut? This question is beyond the scope of the current topic of discussion but perhaps should be discussed in future.

Appendix 1 

Islam and Democracy are Compatible

(adapted by : Javed I. Chaudry) 

Most widely used but mostly misunderstood or misinterpreted terms: God’s Sovereignty and human Innovation. 

God has overall Sovereignty over all things in the universe. But, man’s mandate to exist on earth within the bounds of God’s Sovereignty is a responsibility that man has to fulfill within the guidelines and limits set forth in Quran and Sunnah. As we see from verse (2:30), God has created his vicegerent on earth: 

(2:30)   Note that occasion, when your Rabb said to the angels: I am going to place a vicegerent on earth. The angels said: "Will You place there one who will make mischief and shed blood while we sing Your praises and glorify Your name?" Allah said: "I know what you know not." 

It is obvious that Muslims have failed to identify the need and subtleties involved in God’s total Sovereignty and popular sovereignty to be managed by man. It is certainly misrepresentation of Islam when we fail to accept and to understand the implications of man being God’s vicegerent on earth.  

Such misrepresentation does not serve Islam or Muslims in any way at all. In fact, this only makes Islam appear as an inferior ideology and a barrier to global progress of civilization.

Out of their narrow mindedness and their lack of understanding some consider popular sovereignty as a challenge to God’s sovereignty and hence reject democracy. Those who reject democracy are under the impression that secularism and democracy are necessarily connected. Secularism is not necessarily a prerequisite for democracy.

Religion can and often does play a significant role in democratic politics. The significance of the religion would depend on those who are implementing the Islamic democracy –  which is again a part of the democratic process for which all the members of a given society are responsible.

The ideology (mostly cultivated by semi-literate, narrow-minded clerics) widely found in various Muslim communities around the world does not allow them to differentiate between de jure sovereignty (God’s sovereignty in principle) and de facto sovereignty (man’s sovereignty as a responsibility). Because of the lack of the required distinction, out of their confusion, many Muslims reject democracy – which is a big mistake.

In principle, an Islamic democracy is supposed to be a limited human sovereignty in accordance with Quran and Sunnah with strong public accountability, checks and balances, freedom of religion and basic rights, fairness, equality between genders and justice for all.

The Muslim world plagued by despots, dictators and self-regarding monarchs badly needs the limitation of man’s sovereignty.

On the one hand there are supporters of secularism who believe that Islam and democracy are not compatible, on the other extreme however, there are many Muslims who think limited human sovereignty is an act of treason against God’s sovereignty, both of these extreme views stand on the wrong footings.

 Those who reject Islamic democracy, they falsely believe that the West has the ownership of universal value. As they reject the West, they reject the democracy as well. In other words, they throw away the baby along with the bath water.

The democratic ideals are quite widely upheld today in many Islamic countries. Some prominent Islamic scholars, for example, Maududi and Khomeni have been the advocates for the cause of democracy. Maududi was first to support a Theo democracy: a God centered democracy.

The large number of Muslim voters who come out to vote not only in the West but also in Islamic countries such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey and many other Islamic countries shows that they have a strong desire to support democracy.

Islamic democracy is the way in the Islamic countries to get rid of tyranny, poverty, corruption, illiteracy, injustice and the humiliating domination of the West. In order to achieve that it seems that the biggest challenge is to teach Quranic Islam to Muslims.

The Quran and Sunnah provide guidelines in terms of what is expected from the rulers or the government in terms of human rights, individual freedom and security, but the details of ‘how’ it has to be achieved is not furnished. There is a good reason for that. God knew that different times and situations would call for different techniques and methods to establish governance that would be within the guidelines of what has been set forth by Him. It is a simple test for us to use our common sense as has been said in verse (8:22)

Appendix 2

Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy

TALK BY RADWAN MASMOUDI: "ISLAM & DEMOCRACY:  BETWEEN THE PAST, THE PRESENT & THE FUTURE"

Introduction     

The purpose of this paper is to take a brief historical look at the interactions between Islam, as a religion, and the political systems that ruled the Muslim world (Ummah).  My objective is to outline possible scenarios for the future, and describe how they might serve the Muslim Ummah, and Islam, to different degrees in light of the teachings of the Quran and the Sunna, as well as the emerging and changing needs of our societies.

There is an apparent dilemma in Islam: On one hand Allah (swt) tells us that “those who do not rule according to Allah’s wishes and decrees are the Unbelievers”.  On the other, Allah (swt) or his Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) do not tell us how we are supposed to rule according to His decrees or Who is supposed to be the final authority as to what those decrees really mean.  We know that throughout history, Muslim Jurists and scholars (Ulamas) had very different and diverging opinions about many issues, and that the principle of Ijtihad is essential in Islam.

In purely religious matters, Ulamas and Fuqahas had complete freedom to practice Ijtihad and come up with innovative answers according to the ever-changing conditions of the society.  However, in political matters, this Ijtihad, which is necessary to develop strong and flexible institutions to serve the Ummah, was quickly stopped and banned by rulers who wanted to hijack political freedoms and take advantage of a growing and powerful nation.  The result was that, in political matters, Muslims did not develop strong traditions of consultation, nor did they develop strong institutions capable of performing “check and balance” on the rulers.  In the end, the performance and quality of the government was dependent on the integrity and ‘kindness’ of the ruler.  If the ruler was pious and god-fearing, like the Khulafa al-Rashedden, things were not so bad.  However, if the ruler or the ruling family or elite, wanted to do something else, there was nothing or no one to stop them.

It is time that Muslims develop a political system that is capable of protecting the interests of our nations, within the teachings of our religion, especially in light of the emerging technologies that are bringing the whole world closer every day.  

The Past     

When Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was on his deathbed, many sincere Muslims were alarmed at the prospects of disunity among the new nation and asked him, repeatedly to appoint a “successor”.  To the chagrin of many, Prophet Muhammad refused to do so clearly sending the signal that his mission as a prophet was now complete and it is up to them to pick and choose Who and how they will be ruled.  This very important point is a fundamental principle in Islamic democracy and is what we call today “self-government”.  The wisdom of the Prophet highlights two very major points:

1-      If the Prophet appointed a “successor”, that person could claim infallibility and really abuse his position and authority.  It would be almost impossible to stop him.

2-      The political system needed to evolve and change depending on changing conditions in history and geography.  If the Prophet had fixed it in time before his death, it would be a complete disservice to the future generations of Muslims.

Based on this, the Prophet and Allah (swt) wanted to give the Muslim Ummah (as the true and only representative of God on earth) the right and the duty to select who will rule them, and to hold him (or her) accountable.  The source of political authority (sovereignty) was therefore transferred to the Ummah and not to a single individual or group of people.  Therefore, just like there is no religious class (hierarchy) in Islam, there also is no single representative of God on earth who deserves to be obeyed and followed at all times.  Therefore the Islamic State is not a religious state (theocracy), ruled by a religious elite.  Rather, it belongs to the people, who are collectively responsible for organizing themselves in a way that best serves their interests and in a way that is also compatible with the principles of Quran.

So, when the Prophet (pbuh) died, Muslims were forced to gather in one place and decide on their political future.  They elected Abu Bakr as their ruler, although this vote was not scientific (they did the best they could) or unanimous.  Some form of political opposition began on that day, when some other Muslim leaders including Ali Ibn Abi Talib, disagreed with that decision.  However, most of the early Muslim leaders (sahabas) were trained by the prophet to be selfless and to tolerate differences of opinions.  So they accepted the rule of Abu Bakr as the wish of the majority, even though some disagreed with it.  Unfortunately, those early Muslim pioneers did not foresee the real dangers of conflict and civil war that could result if they did not develop a system of check and balance that could ‘guarantee’ that the ruler did not have excessive powers or did not diverge too much from the will of the majority.  They trusted that Abu Bakr had the knowledge, expertise, and wisdom to not deviate too much from the teachings of Allah and his prophet.

After a short period of time, Abu Bakr died and Muslims had to gather again to chose another leader.  This time they picked Omar ibn al-Khattab, who was another very close companion of the prophet with a tough-minded approach.  Another excellent choice, but again the vote was not unanimous and the opposition was growing.  The early Muslim pioneers, unfortunately, again failed to see the growing dangers of political dissent if it was not organized and channeled into political institutions with clear guidelines and objectives (political parties, election methods, parliament (majlis-al-shura), etc..). One day, Omar was giving a sermon in the Mosque and he told the crowd that he was elected as their leader but he was not the best among them.  He said that he would try to rule according to the teachings of Allah and his prophet, but that if he made a mistake, they should correct him.  One person rose from the crowd and told Omar that if he deviated from the book, they would correct him with “the edge of the sword”.  Unfortunately, neither Omar nor the rest of the Muslims scholars and companions saw the dangers of this approach to ‘correcting the ruler’.  Someone should have jumped and said that it was not an acceptable way, and that Muslims needed to develop a better way of correcting the ruler when he errs.  Someone should have reminded that person that the prophet said:  “the best Jihad is to say the truth in front of an oppressive ruler” (and not to kill that ruler).  Unfortunately, no one did.

A few years later, Omar was killed.  History tells us that Omar was a great man and a great ruler; just, selfless, and compassionate.  However, even great men have opponents who may disagree with them on one or more issues or actions.  By that time, political unrest and dissent was growing in the incipient nation.  The following two leaders (Khulafas), Othman and Ali were elected in a similar manner, but hard as they tried to contain dissent and unite the Ummah, the opposition to their rule and form of government was growing.  Both of them were killed.  When Ali was killed (about 30 years after Prophet’s Muhammad death), the unrest had grown and engulfed almost the whole Ummah.  Muslim armies of hundreds of thousands, led by the Prophet’s companions, were fighting each other over who was “entitled” to rule the Ummah.  There was so much unrest and destruction during this ‘civil war’ that the new ruler (Muawiya) decided unilaterally that his successor should be his son.  His justification was that:

a.       it would be impossible for the whole Muslim ummah, which had grown by a factor of a hundred during that period of time, to either vote or agree on a ruler.

b.      To avoid further bloodshed, it is better that he appoints a successor.

A few Muslim scholars disagreed with him and refused to go along (give baya).  However, the majority was intimidated, by shear force and the threats of chaos, into submission.  The Muslims had failed to establish a system that would accomplish their major objectives of uniting the Umma, and yet rule according to the will of the majority and hold the rulers accountable.  Muslims had to choose between unity under a dictator, or chaos under freedom.  From that point on, the Muslim history was interwoven by periods of freedom, dictatorship, chaos, and unity.  However, as is always the case when one man or a small group of people have a monopoly over political power, the result was mostly fear, intimidation, and tyranny.  In order to justify their oppression, these rulers often co-opted some religious ‘scholars’ into giving them ‘Islamic’ legitimacy as the “ameer al-mumineen” or the “khalifat rasul allah”.

Occasionally, Muslims would get lucky and get a God-fearing ruler.  One such ruler was Omar ibn Abdel-aziz, often referred to as the fifth of the Khulafa al-rashideen.  Upon inheriting the throne from his uncle, Omar realized that he inherited something that did not belong to him or to his uncle.  He declared to the nation that he gives them back their ‘baya’, which his great grand-father took by force, and that they were free to choose (i.e. elect) the ruler that they wanted.  Upon hearing that, Muslims were astonished and realized that Omar was a special person and then chose him of their own free will.

With few such exceptions, Muslims were ruled by dictators and tyrants who ruled with the threat of the sword.  The only way to get rid of them was to also use force and/or declare a revolution/mutiny.  This happened many times, as different dynasties came and went in the different parts of the Muslim world, but the people (i.e. the majority) were usually absent from any decision-making.  Muslims learned to tolerate a little bit of abuse from their rulers as long as those rulers did not go over board and generally left people alone.  Politics was a matter for the elite.

While this situation sounds bad, in fact it was much better that in many other parts of the world where the rulers were not only un-elected, they were also extremely brutal and abusive.  In general, Muslim rulers were kept in check by the law (Sharia) and by the judiciary which was more or less independent.  Muslim rulers always knew that if they stepped out of their bounds, they would be overthrown or killed, because Muslim masses realized that they had a responsibility to keep the government in check. They just did not have a peaceful way to do so.  The sword (or the gun) was the only way to settle political differences.

After centuries of great civilization and development, Muslims began to decline at every level in the 15^th century, which coincided with the rise of the European civilization.  The mainly Christian Europeans were tired of their rulers who were closely intertwined with the church.  They decided to overthrow their kings and with them, church rule.  This began in France, but quickly spread to the rest of Europe.  A book, written by Rose Wilder Lane, and titled “Islam and the Discovery of Freedom”, suggests that Europeans learned the value and importance of freedom mainly from the Muslims.  In the Muslim world, the rulers and the mosque (the ulamas) were mostly separate entities that operated almost independently of each other.  Mosques ran on foundations, endowments, and donations from the public.  Europeans decided that they had it with their kings and wanted to have more say in their day-to-day life as well as the way their government is run.  The old ideals of democracy and government accountability were revived and strengthened.

The Present     

At the beginning of the 20^th century, the majority of Muslim countries were colonized by European powers.  This was a clear reflection of the advancement of European civilizations and cultures and the extent of the fall of the Muslim civilizations during the last 3 or 4 centuries.  When Muslim countries fought for independence, Islam was usually the rallying point.  However, when Muslim countries became independent, the Muslim elites felt that they needed to take drastic actions to catch up with the west.  Many of them, including Ataturk and Bourguiba, felt that Islam was an impediment to modernity, and that if we wanted to develop our countries, we needed to leave Islam aside.  Secularism, or complete separation between the state and religion, became a popular idea, especially among the western educated intelligentsia.  However, the majority of the people was still deeply religious, and felt that Islam is still their ‘way of life’.  Two completely different societies were living side-by-side, with very little interactions.

The modernizing efforts of the secularists could have succeeded if they did not become “anti-religious”.  The true definition of secularism is separation of religion and state, however, in the Muslim countries, the state wanted to destroy the mosque because it felt threatened by it.  Similarly most secularists, especially the leftists and the communists, were really atheists and went as far as repeating the Marxist slogan “religion is the opium of the people”.  Instead of leaving religion alone, Arab and ‘Muslim’ secularists wanted to remove and/or destroy Islam.  It is true that the interpretations of Islam that they were confronted with, at the beginning of this century, were mostly archaic and old-fashioned and probably not suited for the modern age.  However, the correct and proper response should have been to revitalize and modernize Islamic thinking (using Ijtihad), and to ‘Islamize’ modernity.

Modern Muslim rulers did not have the training nor the patience to initiate such an intellectual effort.  Furthermore, they felt threatened by the Muslim scholars (ulamas) who did not want to go along with their modernization and secularization programs.  Democratic traditions were, of course, very weak and so Muslim leaders became tyrants and dictators.  The intellectual and political elites felt that their programs were the right ones, and the masses were not educated or ‘qualified’ to express their opinions about them.  Anyone expressing opposition or criticism was swiftly silenced.

Partly as a response to the “secular” attack, and partly as a way to establish and strengthen their identities, the people became more religious.  This is indeed a strange, but not unique, phenomenon: the more the rulers wanted their societies to ‘leave religion aside’, the more these societies became religious.  The best examples are Iran, Turkey, and Tunisia.  In order to stay in power, these and other ‘secular’ regimes had to resort to violence and the military.  This in turn made secularism unpopular, as it became almost synonymous with dictatorship.  As political dissent was still banned and punished, the mosques became the only place where people can meet and vent their frustrations.  Islamic movements became popular and began to challenge the governments’ legitimacy.  The regimes responded by cracking down on dissent and especially on the religious/Islamic movements.  Many, but thankfully not most, Islamic movements resorted to violence/terrorism as a way to counteract the violence of the regimes.  The cycle of violence became a real danger to the very existence of many countries.

This cycle of violence was not just a threat to the physical well being of the Muslims, it also was a threat to their intellectual development.  Ideas about Islamic political thought, the system of government, elections and accountability, and even secularism needed to be addressed and discussed.  Unfortunately, the atmosphere of violence and fear was not conducive to any debate.  Islamists, i.e. people who believe that Islam has a role to play in politics, could not find a safe environment in which they can debate their ideas and proposals.  Simplistic answers, such as “the Quran is our constitution”, was the only thing they could provide.  This, however, did not diminish their popularity, as the secularists did not fare any better.  Both suffered from the same suffocating environment of fear and intimidation.

In 1979, the Islamic revolution in Iran sent shivers of fear into the rulers’ hearts and rays of hope into the peoples’ hearts.  The revolution proved that Islam was still a very powerful political force, even at the end of the 20^th century and in one of the most secularized countries in the Muslim world. Since secularism was tied to oppression and tyrannical governments, it was doomed to fail.  Muslim governments felt threatened by the revolution and began to see the need for reforms and a more open government.  In the eighties, many governments in the Muslim world tried to implement small steps toward ‘democracy’.  However, it was hard for them to control the pace of democratization.  The more steps they took toward democracy, the more the people demanded, and the more they (the governments) felt threatened.  In the late eighties, three Islamic movements (in Tunisia, Algeria, and Turkey) almost came to power through general elections.  The secular reaction was strong and swift: confrontations at all levels until this ‘threat’ is removed.  In the nineties, most governments cracked down on their opposition (Islamic and secular) and undid the small democratic reforms that they implemented in the eighties.

The Future     

Today, in the beginning of the 21^st century and a new millennium, the Islamic world is in crisis.  Open, and often violent, confrontations are the norm between Islamists and secularists, and between government loyalists and opponents.  There is a lot at stake.  The political future of these countries, more than 55 countries with 1.2 billion inhabitants, is at stake, but so is peace and stability in these countries and all over the world.

The old methods of oppression are simply outdated.  More than 50% of the population of Muslim countries is under 30 years old.  They did not witness colonization, and do not care about the independence struggle.  They are highly educated, they speak several languages, and they watch CNN and al-Jazeera.  Many of them even have access to the internet.  They see how other people live, in terms of prosperity and freedom, and they want the same.  They watch other peoples vote and elect their new leaders, while they are stuck with the same rulers for what seems like eternity.  The new generation is fed up with the status quo.  Change is inevitable.  The only question that remains is: What kind of change?

We, as Muslims living in this century, have to find answers to these critical questions:

1.      How do we elect our rulers and how do we hold them accountable?

2.      How long should they stay in power?

3.      How do we guarantee that the rulers do not abuse their power?

4.      How do we make laws? And how do we make sure that those laws serve the interests of the majority of the people?

5.      How can we guarantee that the rights of the minorities are preserved and protected?

Most of all, we must learn to live with differences of opinions, encourage diversity, and benefit from the opinions and experiences of everyone.  Differences of opinions, including in political matters, are normal and can be healthy.  Even the Sahabas and the early Muslim scholars had diverging opinions.  All the scholars used to say: “this is my opinion, and God knows best”, because they realized that their opinions could be wrong.  Since the Prophet did not appoint a ‘successor’ and since we do not have a religious hierarchy, there is no spokesman for Islam.  There is no one person or institution that we can go back to to resolve our disputes or differences.

We must find an acceptable way to resolve political differences without resorting to violence and intimidation.  In my humble opinion, there are only two ways to resolve political differences: the first is to fight with arms and guns and let the winner rule.  This is the way of Qabeel, and the way that we have been ruled for the last 1400 years.  This way automatically leads to unspeakable violence, destruction, and fear, and is clearly against Islam.  The other way is through dialogue, debate and discussions.  Allah (swt) ordered his Prophet to: “call to the path of your Lord through wisdom and good advice and do not argue with them except in the best of manners”.  If we are ordered to deal with the non-Muslims in this manner, then we surely can treat other fellow Muslims with dignity, respect and tolerance.

This is clearly the Islamic path, but one question remains.  What do we do if we have tried dialogue and debates, and no consensus emerged, as is often the case in political matters and disputes.  Do we then turn to violence and shutting down the opposition, or do we simply go with the will and wishes of the majority?  I would argue that in such cases, going with the majority makes much more sense because the majority has a much bigger chance of being correct.  It is time that we allow the people to rule themselves and trust that majority rule is always better than minority rule.  At the same time, the rights of the minorities must be protected, because there is a chance they could be right and become the majority of tomorrow.  Ultimately, the people must be the judge if we want to protect and safeguard the interests of our nations.  Neither secularism nor Islam can be imposed on the people.

I hope that this great gathering of Muslim scholars and intellectuals would help find the proper answers to these questions from within Islam, so that Muslims can move forward and progress without having to give up our religious and moral character.

________________________________________________________________

Appendix 3

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions

Tuesday, November 9th, 2004

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. [includes rush transcript]

John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.

20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, "Conscience of an Economic Hit Men."

Perkins writes, "The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.

John Perkins goes on to write: "I was persuaded to stop writing that book. I started it four more times during the next twenty years. On each occasion, my decision to begin again was influenced by current world events: the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1980, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the rise of Osama bin Laden. However, threats or bribes always convinced me to stop."

But now Perkins has finally published his story. The book is titled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. John Perkins joins us now in our Firehouse studios.

• John Perkins, from 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described "economic hit man." He is the author of the new book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.

 

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins joins us now in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

JOHN PERKINS: Thank you, Amy. It’s great to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Okay, explain this term, “economic hit man,” e.h.m., as you call it.

JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring -- to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you become one? Who did you work for?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950's, Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew of government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadegh’s government who was Time's magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed -- well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn't have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.

AMY GOODMAN: Okay. Explain the company you worked for.

JOHN PERKINS: Well, the company I worked for was a company named Chas. T. Main in Boston, Massachusetts. We were about 2,000 employees, and I became its chief economist. I ended up having fifty people working for me. But my real job was deal-making. It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan–let's say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador–and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure–a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries. The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, “Look, you're not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.” And today we're going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It's an empire. There's no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It's been extremely successful.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. You say because of bribes and other reason you didn't write this book for a long time. What do you mean? Who tried to bribe you, or who -- what are the bribes you accepted?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I accepted a half a million dollar bribe in the nineties not to write the book.

AMY GOODMAN: From?

JOHN PERKINS: From a major construction engineering company.

AMY GOODMAN: Which one?

JOHN PERKINS: Legally speaking, it wasn't -- Stoner-Webster. Legally speaking it wasn't a bribe, it was -- I was being paid as a consultant. This is all very legal. But I essentially did nothing. It was a very understood, as I explained in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, that it was -- I was -- it was understood when I accepted this money as a consultant to them I wouldn't have to do much work, but I mustn't write any books about the subject, which they were aware that I was in the process of writing this book, which at the time I called “Conscience of an Economic Hit Man.” And I have to tell you, Amy, that, you know, it’s an extraordinary story from the standpoint of -- It's almost James Bondish, truly, and I mean--

AMY GOODMAN: Well that's certainly how the book reads.

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, and it was, you know? And when the National Security Agency recruited me, they put me through a day of lie detector tests. They found out all my weaknesses and immediately seduced me. They used the strongest drugs in our culture, sex, power and money, to win me over. I come from a very old New England family, Calvinist, steeped in amazingly strong moral values. I think I, you know, I’m a good person overall, and I think my story really shows how this system and these powerful drugs of sex, money and power can seduce people, because I certainly was seduced. And if I hadn't lived this life as an economic hit man, I think I’d have a hard time believing that anybody does these things. And that's why I wrote the book, because our country really needs to understand, if people in this nation understood what our foreign policy is really about, what foreign aid is about, how our corporations work, where our tax money goes, I know we will demand change.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to John Perkins. In your book, you talk about how you helped to implement a secret scheme that funneled billions of dollars of Saudi Arabian petrol dollars back into the U.S. economy, and that further cemented the intimate relationship between the House of Saud and successive U.S. administrations. Explain.

JOHN PERKINS: Yes, it was a fascinating time. I remember well, you're probably too young to remember, but I remember well in the early seventies how OPEC exercised this power it had, and cut back on oil supplies. We had cars lined up at gas stations. The country was afraid that it was facing another 1929-type of crash–depression; and this was unacceptable. So, they -- the Treasury Department hired me and a few other economic hit men. We went to Saudi Arabia. We --

AMY GOODMAN: You're actually called economic hit men --e.h.m.’s?

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek term that we called ourselves. Officially, I was a chief economist. We called ourselves e.h.m.'s. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was like, nobody will believe us if we say this, you know? And, so, we went to Saudi Arabia in the early seventies. We knew Saudi Arabia was the key to dropping our dependency, or to controlling the situation. And we worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia–new cities, new infrastructure–which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had -- His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how Torrijos died?

JOHN PERKINS: Omar Torrijos, the President of Panama. Omar Torrijos had signed the Canal Treaty with Carter much -- and, you know, it passed our congress by only one vote. It was a highly contended issue. And Torrijos then also went ahead and negotiated with the Japanese to build a sea-level canal. The Japanese wanted to finance and construct a sea-level canal in Panama. Torrijos talked to them about this which very much upset Bechtel Corporation, whose president was George Schultz and senior council was Casper Weinberger. When Carter was thrown out (and that’s an interesting story–how that actually happened), when he lost the election, and Reagan came in and Schultz came in as Secretary of State from Bechtel, and Weinberger came from Bechtel to be Secretary of Defense, they were extremely angry at Torrijos -- tried to get him to renegotiate the Canal Treaty and not to talk to the Japanese. He adamantly refused. He was a very principled man. He had his problem, but he was a very principled man. He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which -- I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There's no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most -- many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country.

AMY GOODMAN: So, where -- when did your change your heart happen?

JOHN PERKINS: I felt guilty throughout the whole time, but I was seduced. The power of these drugs, sex, power, and money, was extremely strong for me. And, of course, I was doing things I was being patted on the back for. I was chief economist. I was doing things that Robert McNamara liked and so on.

AMY GOODMAN: How closely did you work with the World Bank?

JOHN PERKINS: Very, very closely with the World Bank. The World Bank provides most of the money that’s used by economic hit men, it and the I.M.F. But when 9/11 struck, I had a change of heart. I knew the story had to be told because what happened at 9/11 is a direct result of what the economic hit men are doing. And the only way that we're going to feel secure in this country again and that we're going to feel good about ourselves is if we use these systems we’ve put into place to create positive change around the world. I really believe we can do that. I believe the World Bank and other institutions can be turned around and do what they were originally intended to do, which is help reconstruct devastated parts of the world. Help -- genuinely help poor people. There are twenty-four thousand people starving to death every day. We can change that.

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins, I want to thank you very much for being with us. John Perkins' book is called, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Appendix 4

Islamic Concept of Ijtehad

(Adapted by: Javed I. Chaudry)

 Islam has two fundamental principles, jihad and ijtehad.  In strict Islamic terminology, Jihad means physical struggle or endeavor against suppression and aggression.  It is a defensive war.  It is not aggression. 

Ijtehad means intellectual endeavor to seek the solutions of day to day matters. It is a process of objective soul searching. Ijtehad has been much emphasized in Islam.  It is a rational and analytical approach, based on the Quran and on the teachings of the Sunnah, for interpreting religious matters. 

The Quran challenges us to think and ponder upon its verses.  It stresses the exercise of the rational mind. The Book has laid down the foundations, but we have to be wise in taking steps to build our lives upon it through the course of time.

The Quran has given us fundamentals but we must interpret these fundamentals wisely in accordance with the spirit of the time in which we live. Suppose a man asks a Muslim Jurist, “can a woman drive a car or fly an airplane”? If the Jurist is retrogressive he will say: No, because in the time of prophet of Islam women did not drive a car or fly an airplane.  But if the jurist is modern and progressive he will respond: Yes, a woman can do both of these because at the time of prophet these means of transportation were not invented.  It is said that when the telephone was invented the great jurist of Saudi Arabia said: “we should not use it because it is the voice of Satan.”

 An important consideration: “Ijtehad” or rational enquiry is not permissible in the clear injunctions. For example, the five daily prayer are obligatory in Islam. This means that even all the Muslim clerics and then entire Ummah decided through consensus to say prayers only twice a day, this would be regarded as blasphemy. However, ijteihad could be used to discuss the method of offering these prayers in differing situations as well as the method of performing other rituals.  This is the reason the Quran lays much stress on the need for rational analysis.

Wisdom is the foundation stone of the divine building.   Besides the Quran there are so many sayings of the Holy Prophet which stress the need for wisdom and Ijtehad. 

Dr. Allama Iqbal, in his book entitled “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam,” stresses the need for rational analysis through Ijtehad as well as the need for those called upon to do this analysis to be men of piety, knowledge and truth.

One must remember, ijtehad is not an act of liberalism or modernism of Islam.  Ijtehad is not an excuse for the introduction of unfounded innovation (Bidah) impacting the purity and integrity of Islam. Islam as a whole is not supposed to be stale, static or stagnant.   It needs original, real and wise interpretation. 

Fundamental Divine principles simply cannot be altered.  For instance, the sanctity of the covenant of marriage is what protects the unit of the family and thus the entire fabric of society.  This cannot be altered.  We can discuss different forms or conditions relating to this sacred covenant can be discussed, but we cannot abandon or dilute this foundational spiritual truth. It is service to Islam by raising radical questions and inviting Ijtehad.

Dr. Saleem Ahmed of Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.  He has written a book entitled: “Beyond Veil and Holy War”.  In this book he has raised the importance of Ijtehad. The book deals with the basic Islamic concepts and throws light on practical and rational aspects of Islam.  It is a remarkable and marvelous scholarly effort. He states that as some of the Hadeeth do not tally with Quran or the practice of the Prophet, they should not be accepted. 

It is not the Quran that divides us, but it is the interpretations of Hadith. The Quran was revealed to Muhammad through Divine inspiration, written during his life, and confirmed by him, Hadeeth are human compilations of Muhammad’s reported sayings and actions, complied some eight to ten generations after he had passed away and was no longer available to confirm them. 

Both the traditionalists and modernists must be abandoned. We need rationalists and realists for Ijtehad.