Islam and Elections

2004 Report (Continued)


Executive Summary

In collaboration with Majlis El Hassan, the nongovernmental organization led by His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, Dialogues convened its second international meeting, the “Workshop on Islam and Elections,” in Amman, Jordan, from March 6 to 8, 2004. The idea for this workshop emerged from a debate at the earlier Granada conference as to whether “democratization” represents the desired goal of good governance. Islam was not thought to be naturally antidemocratic; on the contrary, its own normative system provides for limitations on the powers of rulers, promotes the rule of law, and enjoins just governance. Nevertheless, in any civilization, practice does not always keep pace with values; every nation faces demands to reduce inequalities and to further inclusiveness, such as by staging fairer and more participatory elections. The Granada conference thus recommended a workshop on Islam and elections that would draw practitioners and observers from both Muslim and Western societies to discuss common goals and problems in this area. The workshop brought together thirty-two participants who represented a broad spectrum of ideas and practices from throughout the Muslim world as well as the West. They included leaders of Islamist movements, civil society activists, national electoral officials, scholars of international law, and non-Muslim intellectuals. The workshop benefited from the participation of an Iraqi delegation (including some involved in the negotiation of the interim Iraqi constitution), as well as from the contribution of one of the principal negotiators of the constitution of Afghanistan. Their recent experiences underscored the immediacy of the debate on Islam and elections.

Workshop Highlights

Participants affirmed the essential compatibility of Islam with democracy and good governance, citing examples from Islamic scripture and heritage. Throughout the workshop, participants made references to history, its meaning for Muslim identity, and its relationship to the future. Muslim traditions such as shura (consultation) and Sahifa (the constitution drafted by the Prophet Muhammad upon the establishment of the first Islamic state in Medina) were offered, for example, as a solid basis for instituting participatory governance in the twenty-first century. Although some Muslims reject the need for constitutions, claiming the Qur’an as their constitution, participants were in agreement that the Qur’an is neither categoric nor absolute on matters of governance. Modern and practical constitutions that incorporate Islamic values of just and good governance were determined to be required; there was no consensus, however, as to how to render these abstract ideals practicable.

One of the workshop’s most heated discussions concerned whether participatory governance and the protection of human rights are universal, or differ according to historical context and cultural specificities. While recognizing that social, political, and cultural differences exist between nations, some participants insisted that universal human rights, as reflected in international charters and agreements, reflect a basic minimum standard to which all good governance systems must adhere. By acknowledging human rights as universal, they stated, Muslim citizenry could reclaim the peaceful ethic of Islam from those who hijack it to legitimize oppression and violence. Participants accepted that indigenous notions and systems of good governance are preferable to a model borrowed from the West (where, it was noted, good governance takes multiple forms). On the other hand, those who insisted that good governance in the Muslim world must be defined in Islamic terms were confronted with concerns that Islam could be and has been interpreted in such a way as to deny these very principles. Muslims share no universal understanding of the religion’s exact laws and their application; to predicate rights and freedoms upon such ambiguous terrain mitigates their inviolability.

Participants reached consensus on the following ground:

  1. Elections define the concept of citizenship and should be the preferred mechanism for ensuring participatory governance in contemporary Muslim society. (In countries such as India, Malaysia, and Nigeria where there is religious and ethnic diversity, elections are also a means of moderating sectarian conflict and securing minority rights.)
  2. Constitutions are necessary to establish institutional structures that will promote the consent of the governed.
  3. Electoral procedures must hold the government accountable and must stipulate the legitimate turnover of power.
  4. Independent electoral commissions are necessary to ensure that elections are free, fair, and credible.
  5. Elections in Muslim countries must be sensitive to specific cultural, historical, and religious practices and traditions.
  6. Elections are crucial for all societies, regardless of the level of development.

Despite agreement that Muslims are entitled to real constitutional guarantees of rights and freedoms, there was no agreement as to the precise delineation or the universality of these rights. A recurrent theme of the workshop was indeed whether Muslims consider themselves part of the international community. Those who insisted that Muslims are global citizens questioned why rights and freedoms must be qualified as “Islamic” in order for them to be acceptable; to the minds of these participants, Muslims should adhere to widely-accepted international conventions that are in accord with Islamic principles.

Participants were also divided over whether Western models of secularism can be applied to the Muslim world. Those in favor of secularism asserted that rule by religion can, in practice, lead to intolerance and authoritarianism (though this problem is not limited to the Islamic world). Religious neutrality, they felt, should be advocated as a means of respecting pluralism and protecting the freedoms of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Advocates of a secular system pointed out that the separation of religion and state allows for the adoption of international charters and human rights conventions, enabling Muslims to live as members of the global community. It was likewise put forth that in a religiously and ethnically diverse state like Nigeria, secularism is the only viable political system. Those who objected to secularism described Islam as a total way of life, a value system under which there can be no separation between religion and state. This group felt that constitutions in Islamic countries must, above all, respect the Qur’an, which Muslims hold as the supreme law and which is the primary reference for most citizens’ daily lives.

The umma, or community of Muslims, is today dispersed across the globe; a large minority, in fact, lives in non-Muslim countries such as India and a growing percentage lives in secular Western countries. This diffusion seemed to complicate some issues raised at the workshop, such as whether there is a need to devise historically and culturally specific models of good governance. Just as the Muslim people are becoming more geographically spread out, they are also developing a broad spectrum of views regarding who or what constitutes legitimate authority within Islam; participants thus acknowledged that there is no consensus as to the religion’s exact laws and their application. Some participants supported the creation of an Islamic moral authority (that is, an institutionalized forum for making authoritative, broadly acceptable religious decisions on matters relating to governance), while others remained skeptical that such an authority could overcome doctrinal discord and bolster political legitimacy in the Muslim world. Still other participants rejected doctrinal discord as a major concern, claiming that prospects for good governance rely rather on the pursuit of political power.

Conclusions

At the close of the workshop, participants adopted a set of conclusions unanimously affirming that Islam, in its central teachings, embraces constitutional, democratic, just, and accountable electoral government. They also accepted the following principles: that Muslim countries should respect fundamental rights and liberties; that pluralism is desirable and compatible with Islam; that constitutions should reflect Islamic values of just and good governance; and that elections are the best means to ensure participatory governance. Participants expressed reservations and recommended further discussion on such as issues as whether institutions are needed to protect constitutional rights; whether Islamic religious tradition can be harmonized with international human rights standards; whether international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide sufficient definitions of pluralism or whether Muslim societies require specific parameters; and what institutional mechanisms might be required to turn pluralism into a positive force. Participants also voiced concern as to whether constitutions should declare Islam the national religion while recognizing the right of individuals to choose and practice other religions freely; whether constitutions should specify that no law can be enacted that contradicts Islamic law and if so, who would make such determinations; and whether the political authority of the state embodied in the constitution could be enhanced by a central Islamic authority established to resolve doctrinal differences and achieve consensus on fundamental principles.

Participants recommended that a future workshop bring together election authorities from Muslim-majority and other countries with sizeable Muslim populations to discuss rules, regulations, and procedures for conducting nonpartisan elections with legitimate outcomes. Dialogues is tentatively planning to convene such a follow-up workshop in 2005.

Back to the top.

© 2006, The Center for Dialogues: Islamic World - U.S. - The West

Site Map

Site by Bianchi