The question why democracy has not taken root in most Muslim countries requires a lifetime of thought and still cannot be answered neatly. The scope is very wide and in this short essay it will be hard to do justice to the topic. It raises more questions than it answers. Firstly, we have to ask what do we mean by the term democracy? Does it simply mean universal suffrage where every adult citizen is guaranteed a vote? Does it mean a system that honors basic human rights and freedoms? Do people in a democratic society have a real say in the organization of its various relations such as economic and social relations? Is democratic society a just society? Many more questions of this nature can be asked. Before attempting any particular answer, we need to define what we mean by democracy. The answer to our original question would depend upon how you define the term democracy. The text- book definition of the term democracy is roughly: A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is a very general definition. It could be interpreted to mean that a democratic government is elected through universal suffrage and represents the will of the people. If we accept this as a working definition, it is not satisfactory because a popularly elected government rarely takes into account peoples will in the organization of its society or in its decision- making. My own belief is that only a socially just society with universal suffrage, where governments decisions truly reflect its citizens’ will can claim to be a genuine democratic society. Only when the well being of an entire populace is taken into account and where the government allows its citizens true freedom to participate in the organization of a society can we say that it's a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If we accept this definition then we would be hard pressed to find a real democratic society. The western model of liberal democracies with a charter of rights and freedoms and written constitutions is the best we have for now. Their actual workings maybe imperfect but they do guarantee the freedoms and individual rights.

Why have Muslim countries been unable to adopt the West’s model of democracy? Even where the governments are popularly elected such as in Iran and Pakistan, the form of government is not secular and certain basic individual rights are not granted. Women’s rights are specially violated.

 At this point, I would pause to ask what is Islam? Islam is first and foremost a religion. A religion is a system of beliefs and values that concerns the nature of a deity and of human existence and the relation of universe to a deity. Islam is unique in its belief that the relation between deity and human is direct and needs no intermediary. However, like most religions, as it grew, it developed it's own school of philosophical thought and political theory. It is important to remember that from very early on Islam acquired a political character mainly because of the hijra't.  It has been noted by Islamic scholars that Islam is the only religion where schismatic divisions arose out of a political contest and not because of serious doctrinal differences.  Even the metaphysical and philosophical schools owe their origin to a contest for political power. The two main schools of thought were Mu'tazalites and the Ash'arites. The former was a rationalist school of thought that believed in freewill as opposed to determinism. They believed in moral freedom and responsibility, deriving their position from the verses in the Quran that stressed justice and accountability. The second school of thought, the Ash'arite, believed in determinism. It allowed no room for human freedom. Their philosophy is known as 'occasionalism' where the deity continuously intervenes in the life of cosmos and man. Man is nothing in the presence of god's omnipotence. Although, this idea represents a deep religious impulse, it went beyond religiosity and became a dominant theological position and a world outlook. Al Ghazali followed the direction set by the Ash'arite school of thought. He claimed that rationalism led to skepticism and doubt. He challenged the rational trends and re-established Islamic orthodoxy.  Ash'arite school of thought and Al Ghazali's influence resulted in stunting the growth of speculative thought, and in justifying status quo in the political realm. With this world- view, legality took precedence. Legality and interpretation of the law assumed central importance. In time, the consensus of the Community was replaced by the consensus of the Ule'ma. This could be a partial answer to our original question. It can be argued that this orthodoxy facilitated the adoption of Islam as an ideology by the elite. The ideology of 'the path of god".  I maintain that it is only a partial answer. Caliphate and the central political power that it assumed played a role also in the formation of elitist system of ruling. Even after the real shift of power to wazirs and sultans, khalifas continued to have symbolic power and the sultans owed allegiance to the khalif. Herein, probably lay the seeds to Political Islam whose resurgence we see today. However, to treat Islam as a total ideology is to adopt an absolutist view. An apologist would adopt this view and assert that Islam is the only complete faith and is a perfect “democracy” and that it already anticipated what is to come. Law and political theory are all in the Book to regulate each aspect of man’s entire life. God became the law-giver and the notion of man’s freedom was further eroded. When religious law is treated as eternal, then there is no room left for human endeavor. Change becomes anathema. An absolutist aim is to establish the sovereignty of God on earth. I suggest that this is a view that all absolutists hold about their respective religions. Yet, why is it that Western Nations which are predominantly Christian with absolutists in their ranks managed to be viable democracies? Enlightenment is the most obvious answer. Why did Enlightenment bypass Muslim societies? Could it be because of the stronghold of orthodoxy because of which Muslim societies could not respond to and integrate the challenge of reason, science and secular humanism? It is not in the scope of this paper to get into the history of Enlightenment but it is important to note that it gave rise to scientific rationalism and a corollary belief that nature is innate and brute and to be controlled and exploited by man. Exploration of other continents and lands followed and in due time colonization of “inferior “people followed with the express intention of bringing civilization to them.

 This brings us to more recent history and the contemporary situation. We have to take into account the history of colonization and it's effects on the development of colonized nations. The   effect of external involvement and interference that continued after the countries were granted independence. How the pattern of social and political development of newly independent countries was influenced by the external involvement from the First World War to the present times. Whether, and how the imposition of the Western modes of production and distribution i.e, Capitalism, augmented the role of military and authoritarian regimes. Capitalist markets do necessitate stable regimes, and authoritarian governments are more stable, so such regimes were propped up and supported. The economic colonization of many of the formerly colonized countries continues to this day. This phenomenon of external intervention and control is not limited to Muslim countries. South America, Central America, African nations are all affected by external intervention. Any nationalist aspirations of these nations are crushed if they affect the strategic and economic interests of the dominant external powers. These strategic and economic interests of Western powers undermine the aspirations of the third world countries and their true self- determination. Either the legitimately chosen governments are toppled by their intervention and "friendly" dictatorships installed, or the societies are crippled by the policies of structural adjustments and other economic and policy dictates.   Furthermore, in many Middle Eastern countries artificial borders were drawn and modern nation -states were created in the Western image for the strategic interests of the West. Example of Lebanon is a good case in point. The constitution of that country was created to keep the Christian presence in any government that would be formed and thus create an artificial balance. If we take Iraq's example, again, the constitution was created under foreign mandate to create a balance between three major contending communities. To begin with, Kurds were dispersed into separate countries because of the drawing of artificial borders after the First World War. My point is how can there be a genuine self- determination and evolution of a society when there is continuous external intervention? Iran, Iraq, Algeria, and now Palestine are among some of the Muslim countries that did elect their governments democratically. But they are not allowed their aspirations if they conflict with the West’s strategic interests. The point is, democracy is possible in Muslim countries if there is no external influence and pressure to curb their national interests in favor of the West’s interests Indonesia and Malaysia are successful examples.

To conclude, I would reiterate that there is nothing inherent in Islamic doctrine to make it undemocratic. If it was so, Muslims would not participate in democratic societies. Political Islam is ascendant in electoral politics but the reasons for it are varied and specific to each country. Muslims are not a monolithic community. Its adherents belong to diverse countries and cultures. There are over a billion Muslims worldwide who are an integral part of Islam. Many of these Muslims participate in their respective civil societies and exercise their democratic rights where they can. In India, the Muslim turnout at voting time is the highest, so much so that it pushes up the national average of voter turnout. Most people regardless of their religion would like to have a freedom to determine their lives and have a say in the decisions that their government makes because governmental decisions affect their economic and societal status. Ideally, a truly democratic society would stress social justice and create policies that would be beneficial to the overall fabric of society. However, in reality, any given country is governed by its elite. The interests of the elite are not the same as the interests of the general populace. The elite, be it secular or clerical, exerts its influence to control the governing bodies, the media, and the educational institutes. The people may exercise their right to vote but there is no real representation and they do not have a real impact on government’s policies. People’s will is not central. The most recent example that underscores this point is the antiwar agitation before the War and occupation of Iraq. The dissent becomes meaningless when it has no impact. The dissent is allowed but is not taken seriously by the ruling elite. In this atmosphere, talk of democracy becomes mere rhetoric. The talk of exporting democracy to other lands becomes pious posturing. I, therefore, think that a more interesting question would be what constitutes an open society and its viability in Muslim countries.