We became elderly waiting for this moment: Islamic Democracy

With regard to the recent announcement made by the Tunisian En-Nahda Movement underlining its commitment to democracy, leaving aside political Islam, and a decision to separate Dawah (preaching of Islam) from politics, should we say thanks to its leader Rachid Al Ghannouchi, or to the natural development of the movement for this achievement?

I personally prefer the second option, which is the natural development of the movement. This Islamic movement, whose age is near to a century, is part of the Muslim world witnessing change under the influence of modernity and the concept of the modern state, based on concepts of specific borders, sovereignty and citizenship. Therefore the development of this Islamic movement should be seen in this context.

The movement was advanced compared to the Arab regimes. Modern state features like a constitutions, parliament, secular regime, and modernization of society displayed by Arab countries were simply a matter of show. In fact the regimes were Mamluk systems, whose age dated back to around 1000 years, and were based on a power controlling system. Mubarak or Saddam Hussein were not different from any Mamluk Sultans, who were always busy with sustainability of their regimes, conformity, and inheritance of regimes by their sons or brothers.

Military commanders (the new Mamluks) tried to bring changes to their countries, with the support of some educated people in Istanbul or Europe. They tried to change their newly established countries into modern countries like the European ones. Countries whose people did not know anything except for the Sultan, and his representatives, feudal lords who collect taxis. Most of the Arab renaissance thought appeared during that period, including the relations between democracy and Islam, Islam and modern laws, minorities and citizenship.

Another resistance came from the traditional feudal lords who aligned with extremist jurists, but they did not provide them with suitable solutions. Arab countries witnessed conflicts extending for about 1000 years and this was supposed to lead to compatibility between Islam and democracy within a modern state system.

However, the weakness of modernity projects and initiatives adopted made it easier for the military to take power and control, aborting the first Arab renaissance. Such attempts failed in some Arab countries like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen, and these were the countries engulfed by Arab Spring protestors five years ago.

The military rulers thought that they had alternative renaissance projects to realize liberation, justice, industry and education, but they also failed because their attempts were morally and ethically baseless, under a lack of political and democratic reformation. Nevertheless, former regimes were replaced by empty-regimes (a vacuum) built on intelligence and oppression and thus the political reformation process was frozen for half a century.

The project of political Islam was based on the re-establishment of Islamic Caliphate, thinking that this is the way to restore the dignity and unity of Muslims. But when they practically became involved in public affairs they realized that this dream is impossible to materialize on the ground due to the miserable situation of the countries concerned.

Countries are suffering from poverty, weakness, domination of foreigners, and corruption. All these made the Islamists more realistic, but this change needed a long time, and happened gradually and in stages, during which they tried to impose a regional form of Sharia rule — the Sharia system that enabled them to implement their thoughts in the areas of education and upbringing.

They also raised the question of whether they need to democratize Islam or to Islamise democracy but later they also realised none of these could happen on the ground. For instance Mahfuz Nahnah, of Algeria offered the theory of “Shura-Democracy” but the idea did not survive for long.

When Salafists got involved in this field they returned the whole issue to square one by raising the question of whether or not it is allowed to vote on matter of Sharia, which is Allah’s rules, and how it could be subject to human acceptance or refusal. But gradually they reduced their demands and asked to include Sharia in constitutions. This was the case of Muslim Brotherhood with President Anwar Al Sadat, who accepted their demands, and considered Sharia law to be the basis for legislation.

They also realised that even this was not very effective because the president, his party and the government had the final decision on matters of war, peace, politics, the economy and education and all public affairs, not the constitution.

For many long years Islamists have seen the situations of their countries continuously deteriorating while other parts of the world were witnessing advancement and rapidly development. The common factor amongst countries enjoying stability and development, including Europe, Japan, Korea and India was the democratic regime. So it is not fair to say democracy is just a Western formula and then refuse it.

Throughout that long period, countrywide movements were witnessed along with, painful detentions, and failures of all to achieve changes that began a century ago. An Islamic experiment took place in Turkey. An experiment began from the principle of “I seek refuge in God from Satan and from politics” which gradually the movement entered. Failure after failure occurred with their insistence on keeping pace with the principle of keeping the “state secular”, even though its leaders were not secular. This was the advice given by the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt when President Mursi was in office.

The secular state run by non-secular leaders succeeded in Turkey and solved the problem of inherited legacy and Turkey became role model for Islamists. So its successes were added to these changes experienced by Muslim countries and communities throughout the century. Similar experiences worked in Morocco peacefully, and in Tunisia despite some chaos, while other countries failed. This could be due to their inefficiency or the surrounding environment was not suitable for change. A democratic environment is a minimum requirement to make changes.

Of course, the leadership has a role, so Ghannouchi — an Islamic ‘think-tank’ who has been known a long time for his modern ideology compared to others, should be recognized for his important part. Erdogan in Turkey and Bin Kiran in Morocco were both known as popular public leaders, so they successfully led their parties to this big leap.

Egyptians should admit that they lost a big opportunity. The democracy survived there for two years, looking for someone to protect it. Yet they indulged in the issue of identity and the monopoly of rule. They should focus on establishing democracy at first before setting up administration, empowerment, a development plan, economic, educational reforms and any other projects.

Tackling the stalemate of power exchange is half the battle for all people, not only for the Islamic movement. This is what Al Ghannouchi did and what made democracy stable in his country. Thus Al Ghannouchi and his “Islamic Democratic” party are ready to jump to power in the forthcoming election.

Finally, if I had attended the conference I would have asked him whether we should still call him Sheikh or Mr President.

The writer is a Saudi Arabian journalist, columnist, author and the General Manager and Editor-in-Chief of Al Arab News Channel.