The Arabs and the Sharia: Models of Governance
So we are back now, discussing once again the notion of what is wrong with the statement that in the Arab world, outside of Lebanon, there have not been very many calls for rule of law or democracy with much staying power that do not depend in one way or another on the idea that the ruler has exceeded proper Islamic boundaries. Yesterday we raised one issue, that this claim cannot possibly support the notion that rule of law in the Muslim world is dependent on shari'a because so much of the Muslim world, and its better success stories, are separate from the Arabs. But let's focus today on the Arabs, and whether or not rule of law means, to that ethnic people, shari'a and no other possibilites are apparent.
I should note as a preliminary matter that there are any number of reasons that people choose to ally with Islamist movements that have nothing to do with effective governance, rule of law, or democracy. In the same way that a deeply prolife fellow might (or rather could with absolute consistency) concede that John McCain would be a less effective leader than Obama but would do more to stop abortions and therefore deserves his vote, so a deeply religious Egyptian might be so committed to shari'a, as a means of resisting Western infiltration (major theme of this blog), as a means of ensuring local authenticity, all through a commitment to God's Rule, that she doesn't care about governance. In fact, that was partly the POINT of yesterday's post, and certainly a central point of my book review, that Islamism isn't linked in all cases, or even in many cases, to the rule of law necessarily. It's about realization of shari'a, and not necessarily or even primarily rule of law aspects of it. Those who clamor for rule of law form different groups. Can you be both? Sure, you can be a rule of law person who wants more shari'a, but that doesn't link the two in all cases. You can also be a secularist who wants rule of law, and you can definitely be an Islamist who doesn't care at all about rule of law.
But for this post, let's stick to the case of the Egyptian or Palestinian fellow, who really does look to Islam to help achieve better governance and who votes for Islamists for primarily that purpose, becuse they are the most viable opposition, as the latter is true in large parts of the Arab world.
I think if you took some Egyptian fellow whose house was just crushed in this horrible cliff collapse story with his family inside, and who is told in response by government officials that he has built a home without a permit and is therefore to blame (as if the permit homes were enough to hold everyone), and you ask him what he wants, I think he is going to say he wants accountability, transparency, honesty, responsiveness from his government, all aspirations of the rule of law society and all the hallmarks of what an effective government is. And I think he would probably link that to Islam, as in these secular regimes are a Western concoction, they don't work in our part of the world, let's stop trying to ape these Westerners and do what we do, follow the path of Islam, because we are better, and that will lead to a better government. The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood actually is more organized and therefore capable of assisting him in need only fortifies this conclusion.
But the real question is, is it the Islam that is the issue for this particular Egyptian, or the ineffective government? That is, if a government were less Islamic, still Islamic in the sense that it isn't opening coed swimming pools next to the Azhar, but not really altogether concerned about implementing much of shari'a, but effective, would the Egyptian mind? The Dubaian doesn't, the Qatari doesn't, the Emirati generally doesn't, why do we think the Egyptian would? I don't think so, I think generally Islam lip service (and of course consistency with deep social norms to some extent) would be sufficient. Recall, after all, that only three decades ago, that same Egyptian would be much more likely to find effective government in radical secular Arab nationalism than Islam. In the 1980's, a similarly situated Shi'i in Iraq's south was as likely to find the solution in Marx's atheism as in Sadr's Islamic economic leftist notions. Arabs, like anyone else, have been searching for effective government from the colonial era, a government that listens to and responds to its people, and yet Islam has only been a significant part of that effort for the last thirty odd years.
So yes Arab nationalism is out, and so is communism, mainly because they haven't been able to deliver the goods either. When they could in Gulf Arabia or beyond, Islamism waned. But where they did not succeed, the idea comes about, well maybe Islam can. Didn't we have a great civilization once? Maybe we can do that again.
The point is, that the Egyptian, to the extent that his call for shari'a is based on rule of law and effective governance concerns, doesn't really care how he gets effective government,he just wants it. Political Islam just seems to him the way to go about doing that. As to why there haven't been more calls for secular rule of law and democracy that this person might listen to, it's because they've heard it and it didn't work. It isn't because the Egyptian has inherently something in his character that makes him think Islam is the way to achieve the rule of law.
Now can the Islamist deliver on the promise of effective government? In the Sunni world, his record is very poor. The examples of Islamism are generally not models of good governance at all. Sudan and the case of Pakistan under Zia are examples of these failures, deplorable under any rule of law standard.
But there is a broader point. Leaving aside past failures, to succeed, what they'd have to do is what secular countries do--foster an independent judiciary and a free press, hold regular elections, allow for suits against the government, require regular, public government accounting practice, and the like. Now you could package all that with some medieval Islamic term to make it look good like a pretty little bow on a gift, or you could acknowledge its Western origins. It doesn't matter, either way, you aren't really dealing with shari'a, or Islamic legal theory, you are just creating good governance, to which Islam is at most useful rhetoric. And you don't need Islamists for this task, you just need someone who can run a country well. And THAT, and not the Muslim Brotherhood, is what those Arabs seeking effective governance have really been looking for all these years.
HAH
I should note as a preliminary matter that there are any number of reasons that people choose to ally with Islamist movements that have nothing to do with effective governance, rule of law, or democracy. In the same way that a deeply prolife fellow might (or rather could with absolute consistency) concede that John McCain would be a less effective leader than Obama but would do more to stop abortions and therefore deserves his vote, so a deeply religious Egyptian might be so committed to shari'a, as a means of resisting Western infiltration (major theme of this blog), as a means of ensuring local authenticity, all through a commitment to God's Rule, that she doesn't care about governance. In fact, that was partly the POINT of yesterday's post, and certainly a central point of my book review, that Islamism isn't linked in all cases, or even in many cases, to the rule of law necessarily. It's about realization of shari'a, and not necessarily or even primarily rule of law aspects of it. Those who clamor for rule of law form different groups. Can you be both? Sure, you can be a rule of law person who wants more shari'a, but that doesn't link the two in all cases. You can also be a secularist who wants rule of law, and you can definitely be an Islamist who doesn't care at all about rule of law.
But for this post, let's stick to the case of the Egyptian or Palestinian fellow, who really does look to Islam to help achieve better governance and who votes for Islamists for primarily that purpose, becuse they are the most viable opposition, as the latter is true in large parts of the Arab world.
I think if you took some Egyptian fellow whose house was just crushed in this horrible cliff collapse story with his family inside, and who is told in response by government officials that he has built a home without a permit and is therefore to blame (as if the permit homes were enough to hold everyone), and you ask him what he wants, I think he is going to say he wants accountability, transparency, honesty, responsiveness from his government, all aspirations of the rule of law society and all the hallmarks of what an effective government is. And I think he would probably link that to Islam, as in these secular regimes are a Western concoction, they don't work in our part of the world, let's stop trying to ape these Westerners and do what we do, follow the path of Islam, because we are better, and that will lead to a better government. The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood actually is more organized and therefore capable of assisting him in need only fortifies this conclusion.
But the real question is, is it the Islam that is the issue for this particular Egyptian, or the ineffective government? That is, if a government were less Islamic, still Islamic in the sense that it isn't opening coed swimming pools next to the Azhar, but not really altogether concerned about implementing much of shari'a, but effective, would the Egyptian mind? The Dubaian doesn't, the Qatari doesn't, the Emirati generally doesn't, why do we think the Egyptian would? I don't think so, I think generally Islam lip service (and of course consistency with deep social norms to some extent) would be sufficient. Recall, after all, that only three decades ago, that same Egyptian would be much more likely to find effective government in radical secular Arab nationalism than Islam. In the 1980's, a similarly situated Shi'i in Iraq's south was as likely to find the solution in Marx's atheism as in Sadr's Islamic economic leftist notions. Arabs, like anyone else, have been searching for effective government from the colonial era, a government that listens to and responds to its people, and yet Islam has only been a significant part of that effort for the last thirty odd years.
So yes Arab nationalism is out, and so is communism, mainly because they haven't been able to deliver the goods either. When they could in Gulf Arabia or beyond, Islamism waned. But where they did not succeed, the idea comes about, well maybe Islam can. Didn't we have a great civilization once? Maybe we can do that again.
The point is, that the Egyptian, to the extent that his call for shari'a is based on rule of law and effective governance concerns, doesn't really care how he gets effective government,he just wants it. Political Islam just seems to him the way to go about doing that. As to why there haven't been more calls for secular rule of law and democracy that this person might listen to, it's because they've heard it and it didn't work. It isn't because the Egyptian has inherently something in his character that makes him think Islam is the way to achieve the rule of law.
Now can the Islamist deliver on the promise of effective government? In the Sunni world, his record is very poor. The examples of Islamism are generally not models of good governance at all. Sudan and the case of Pakistan under Zia are examples of these failures, deplorable under any rule of law standard.
But there is a broader point. Leaving aside past failures, to succeed, what they'd have to do is what secular countries do--foster an independent judiciary and a free press, hold regular elections, allow for suits against the government, require regular, public government accounting practice, and the like. Now you could package all that with some medieval Islamic term to make it look good like a pretty little bow on a gift, or you could acknowledge its Western origins. It doesn't matter, either way, you aren't really dealing with shari'a, or Islamic legal theory, you are just creating good governance, to which Islam is at most useful rhetoric. And you don't need Islamists for this task, you just need someone who can run a country well. And THAT, and not the Muslim Brotherhood, is what those Arabs seeking effective governance have really been looking for all these years.
HAH
Comments