Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local News & Opinion
Travel
Books, Arts & Education

08.05 "American Teen": A Winning Documentary about Real-Life High Schoolers

07.31 Francis Boyle's "Palestine Palestinians and International Law"

07.25 Jeff Halper's An Israeli in Palestine (Part II)

07.21 Jeff Halper's An Israeli in Palestine (Part I)

Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health & Environment

08.05 Obama is Right: It's Easy to Reduce the Nation's (and Your Own) Fuel Bill Dramatically

07.24 We're a Nation of Lemmings

Media Watching

08.06 Why McCain May Well Win

08.06 Media Fall for 'Race Card' Spin

08.01 Wall Street Journalomics: The Case of the Missing Tax Facts

07.31 CNN Scoffs at White House Critics

07.31 WPost Calls Out 'Uppity' Obama

07.28 Big Media Hectors Obama on 'Surge'

07.17 Corporate Media Blackouts Continue as Iran War Looms and Impeachment Moves Ahead

07.17 The Pentagon and the Hunt for Black Gold

07.16 Washington Post's McCain-Friendly Poll

07.15 You Can’t Tell a Magazine by Its Cover Or A Candidate by His Rhetoric

US Politics, Policy & Culture

08.07 The Hamdan Principle and You

08.07 McCain Adopts Cheney's Energy Plan

08.06 The Serpent's Egg: Solzhenitsyn and the Origins of America's Gulag

08.05 Mining Racism and Murder in a Northeastern Pennsylvania Coal Town

08.04 The Other Presidential Candidates

08.03 McCain, Anthrax & the Afghan Blunder

08.01 Justice Probe Still Threatens Gonzales

07.31 Obama's Surge in Berlin

07.30 War Without End, Amen: Into the Afghan Abyss with Obama

07.30 McCain's Spin on the 'Surge'

07.30 Friday's House Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment: A Victory and a Challenge

07.29 Did the Surge Work?

07.24 Bush's 'Surge' Gets Mixed Reviews

07.24 The Mother of All Messes

07.23 Mukasey to Congress: Defy the Rule of Law

07.23 The Exaggeration of Terror

07.23 Mukasey's Excellent Idea: War All the Time, Enemy Combatants Everywhere

07.22 McCain's Afghan Strategic Blunder

07.18 Making Americans Unsafe

07.18 I Was a Victim of the Government’s Absurd and Over-Hyped War on Terror

07.15 Thinking About Safety

07.15 The High Cost of Bush's Iraq Gambit

07.11 McCain's Nomination - A Possible September Surprise?

US “High Crimes” & Misdemeanors

08.08 American Insouciance

08.07 Extra! Dog Bites Man! Read All About It!

08.05 Marching Off Into Tyranny

08.05 Follow This Dime

07.31 Wave of 'Capitol Crime' Continues

07.29 Bodyguard of Lies: The Truth Behind the 'Surge's' Smokescreen

07.28 Secret "Torture Memo" Gave Legal Cover to Interrogators Who Acted in "Good Faith"

07.28 The Bush Administration's Secret Biowarfare Agenda

07.26 The Endless Smearing of Joe Wilson

07.19 'Justifying' Torture: Two Big Lies

07.18 Torture As Official US Policy

07.16 Bush Asserts Exec Privilege; Blocks DOJ From Releasing CIA Leak Documents

07.16 Impeachment Hearings: A Win is a Win

07.15 Torture for the Torturers

07.14 Imperial Wizards: The Nangarhar Massacre and U.S. Plans for Central Asia

07.12 Kucinich Pushes on Impeachment

07.11 Disorderly Conduct: Subverting the Bipartisan Paradigm on Iraq

07.10 Mukasey: Bush's New 'Mr. Cover-up'

Economics & Business

08.04 Thinking About Ponzi

07.29 Thinking About Umbrellas

07.21 Thinking About Interventions

07.11 Running on Empty

07.10 A Work Force Betrayed

International

08.08 Marching Through Georgia: Cold War II Proxy Conflict Turns Hot

08.07 Living Death: The Eternal Now of Hiroshima

08.07 War with Iran - On, Off or Undecided?

08.04 Gaza Under Siege

07.28 "If I Forget Thee, Umm Touba..."

07.28 ICC and al-Bashir: Ocampo’s Justice

07.28 Dogs of War: Hijacking National Policy

07.17 Renunciation and Escalation: Conflicting Tides in the Terror War

07.16 Maliki's 'Timetable' Shakes Iraq Debate

07.16 Drought and Israeli Policy Threaten West Bank Water Security

07.14 Enabling Tyranny—Brigitte Bardot And Other Victims

07.14 Duce Bags: Italy Leads Fascist Revanche in Western Democracies

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.
Google
This site Web
 
  The Challenges of Maximalist Democracy

COMMENTARY:

The Challenges of Maximalist Democracy

Dr. Liaquat Ali Khan
It appears, that the Bush administration, despite its fierce rhetoric against Muslim extremists, is willing to accommodate political Islam.
In its crusade to democratize the Muslim world, the Bush administration faces the challenges of maximalist democracy—an all-inclusive conception of democracy that generates free and full electoral competition among parties with diverse political platforms. Maximalist democracy loathes diminishing universal suffrage, banning political parties, or restricting political platforms. In the Muslim world, maximalist democracy requires that both Islamic and secular parties be allowed to organize and compete in general elections, and form government upon winning.

At present, a few Muslim nations practice maximalist democracy. Despite military coups, Pakistan and Bangladesh have hung on to maximalist democracy. They allow parties of diverse ideological stripes—Islamic, secular, and communist—to freely compete with each other in the general elections. Iraq’s constitution drafted under American occupation has adopted maximalist democracy as well. The constitution permits religious and secular parties to freely participate in the political process. Iraq’s maximalist democracy, however, is the inevitable outcome of complex forces that occupation and insurgency have unleashed. After deliberately sensitizing the Sunni and Shia separateness, the US had no option but to allow religious parties to compete for power. The Iraqi example, therefore, furnishes little proof that the US is committed to maximalist democracy.

It appears, though, that the Bush administration, despite its fierce rhetoric against Muslim extremists, is willing to accommodate political Islam. In Afghanistan, the US made no effort to ban religious candidates from running in parliamentary elections. The Taliban were disqualified for their alleged support of terrorism and not for their religious orientation. The Bush administration has not opposed even Hamas, a militant Islamic party designated as a terrorist organization under US laws, in contesting parliamentary elections in Gaza and West Bank. Bush policymakers may have concluded that allowing Islamic parties to participate in electoral competition might in fact moderate political Islam—a goal that the US is determined to pursue.

Notwithstanding these concessions to political Islam, the US does not promote maximalist democracy as a matter of principle. Consider the US attitude toward Turkey and Iran, two Muslim nations that repudiate maximalist democracy from opposite viewpoints.

The Turkish constitution embodies irrevocable secularism. And the Turkish army is opposed to political Islam. Political parties that propose to change the Republic’s secular characteristics are banned under the constitution. Turkish democracy is open only to secular parties. In recent years, Islamic parties have made some headway, as evidenced by pro-Islamic Erdogan’s rise to power. They must still publicly declare their commitment to constitutional secularism. The US is unlikely to pressure Turkey to change its secular constitution to make room for maximalist democracy, where Islamic parties may contest elections on the basis of their religious, rather than secular, political platforms. Lack of pressure aside, no US administration has criticized Turkey for instituting a secular monopoly.

The US is quick to vilify Iran for repudiating maximalist democracy, but no U.S. administration has criticized Turkey for instituting a secular monopoly.

Ironically, though, the US is quick to vilify Iran for repudiating maximalist democracy. This is because Iran is a democratic theocracy. Its constitution establishes a fusion state under which all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely to every aspect of law. As such, no political party that challenges the fusion of state and Islam is allowed to participate in the electoral process. The Council of Guardians screens candidates for their commitment to the fusion principle. Maximalist democracy requires that Iran change its constitution and allow secular parties to contest elections. Even though the fusion provisions of Iran's constitution are theoretically amendable, the ruling clerics would not allow maximalist democracy to challenge the Republic's theocratic monopoly.

When the Bush administration praises Turkey but condemns Iran, its commitment to maximalist democracy seems arbitrary, even anti-Islamic. In praising Turkey, the Bush administration contends that Turkey has successfully combined Islam and democracy. This admiration of Turkey suggests the U.S. favors secular democracy, which allows the people to freely practice their faith, but refuses to accommodate political Islam. In condemning Iran, US officials leave no doubt that Iran fails to meet the standards of maximalist democracy, even though Iran has successfully held periodic presidential and parliamentary elections. “The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people,” says Bush, “or lose its last claim to legitimacy.”

From these conflicting reactions to political monopolies in Turkey and Iran, one might conclude that the U.S. favors secular democracy but opposes political Islam. This conclusion, however, does not explain the US policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine, where the US has allowed political Islam to participate in the democratic process.

It appears the US prefers that Muslim nations adopt secular liberal democracy. Pragmatism dictates otherwise. The Bush administration seems to have accepted political Islam as a reality. Accordingly, it is prepared to allow Islamic parties to compete with secular forces, particularly in nations where political Islam has slim chances of major victory. This pragmatism, however, does not champion political Islam. When a Muslim nation excludes Islamic parties from the political process, the U.S. is unlikely to vouch for political Islam, although the U.S. may pay lip service to the human rights of the excluded Muslim groups. For example, the U.S. may criticize Egypt and Algeria for mistreating the members of Islamic parties, but it is unlikely to press for maximalist democracy.

Diverse nations have every right to construct new conceptions of democracy, which respond to their religious, economic, and social needs.

In my book, A Theory of Universal Democracy (2003), I have argued that Fukuyama’s secular liberal democracy cannot be the end of human history, simply because we are not at the end of human intelligence. Diverse nations have every right to construct new conceptions of democracy, which respond to their religious, economic, and social needs. While secular liberal democracy has served many nations well, it cannot be universalized. No view of democracy must force Muslim nations to oust their religious traditions from the parameters of law and state. Muslims have every right to institute a fusion state that combines rather than separates law and Islam. Exercising this right, however, Muslim nations must protect the fundamental liberties of religious minorities. An Islamic system is most acceptable when it embraces maximalist democracy, allowing secular parties to challenge the official ideology—something that Iran does not permit.

Even One God, Islam’s ultimate source of instruction, is generously maximalist. God allows Satan to compete fully and freely in God’s universe and challenge His conception of virtue and good life. Muslim nations should institute maximalist democracy for launching a free competition between secular and religious forces. Whether the US will consistently support an all-inclusive democracy is an unsure bet.


Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. He may be reached at ali.khan@washburn.edu.


Copyright © 2006 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on February 6, 2006.

 

Public Service Ads:
Verifiable Voting in Maryland