Are Islam & democracy compatible? Democracy is taking hold in some parts of the Muslim world. But in others, especially the Middle East, the prospects are unclear.

Were democracy only a matter of holding elections, the countries of the Islamic world might be considered models of democracy. Over the past year, people in Iran, Oman, Jordan, Morocco, Indonesia, and Turkey have been able to vote for city councils, parliaments, and government advisory boards.

Algerians cast ballots in a presidential election. Citizens of Qatar approved their first-ever constitution in a national referendum. Even Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, is considering the possibility of letting its male citizens elect regional councils.

President Bush says Islamic countries--particularly in the Middle East--are ripe for the spread of democracy. Part of his stated rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq was to topple authoritarian regimes in both countries and plant the seeds of democracy. "A free Iraq rising in the heart of the Middle East will show the people of that region a clear alternative to the bitterness that feeds terror," Bush said in June.

WHAT MAKES A DEMOCRACY?

But true democracies, at least as Americans conceive of them, have other hallmarks, in addition to regular elections: peaceful transfers of power, freedom of speech and religion, protection of the rights of women and minorities.

Afghanistan held what most observers said was a relatively smooth national election in October, choosing Hamid Karzai as the nation's first popularly elected President. In Iraq, the U.S. military is trying to bolster the unstable security situation so the country can hold its first democratic elections in January to choose a parliament, which will then draft a constitution. And Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are planning January elections for a successor to President Yasir Ararat, who died in November.

The world is watching these experiments with democracy closely. Afghans, Iraqis, and Palestinians of voting age have experienced little but war, occupation, and dictatorship. They don't live in places with a history of peaceful debate on national issues or of real political parties. Many people fear that well-organized religious fundamentalists could at some point hijack the democratic process because they already have grassroots organizations that can mobilize, or even terrorize, voters. "There is no more critical question than how you can be a Muslim today, and also modern and democratic," says Mustapha Tlili, a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York.

TWO CAMPS

When it comes to democracy, the Muslim world is roughly divided into two camps. On one side are the countries outside the Middle East. In Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Indonesia (the most populous Muslim nation), for example, elections have proved to be real political contests, permitting people to change their leaders by vote.

Turkey, too, is often cited as a Muslim nation that is also a democracy. Over its 81 years as an independent republic, power has changed hands repeatedly through regular elections. But the record has been marred by three coups in which army officers temporarily took power from civilian politicians they considered too weak to control the country or too beholden to religious factions.

In the Arab Middle East, democracy has put down only shallow roots. Many Arab countries have some of the familiar trappings of democracy: lively newspapers; constitutions that, on paper at least, guarantee individual rights; parliaments that debate laws; political parties; and elections.

But in one of the crucial tests of democracy--that is, the peaceful transfer of power--the Arab nations have failed.

Kings have inherited thrones from their fathers, as in the case of Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi. Or, as happened in Qatar and Oman, the current monarchs seized power in palace coups by expelling their fathers. Elsewhere, Presidents have come to power through military coups, as was the case in Libya and Tunisia and, until last year's American-led invasion, was the tradition in Iraq.

Even in Egypt and Syria, both officially republics, the President runs as the only candidate after being nominated by a parliament he often controls--giving voters only a 'Yes' or 'No' choice in elections every four years. "Those elections are pro forma and staged and no one takes them seriously, in or outside the countries," says Saadeddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian sociologist who has promoted free elections and democracy for many years in Cairo.

Ibrahim, who was imprisoned in Egypt for his pro-democracy activities, says many Arab Muslim countries have a very long way to go in carrying out real democratic reforms. "Peaceful rotation of power is one sign that a country is democratizing," he says. "Freedom of expression is another. Tolerance toward the opposition and minorities is a third sign. Another is the rule of law and respect for courts."

ISLAM'S ROLE IN GOVERNMENT

None of those principles conflict with Islam, Muslim scholars say. And there may be much in Islam that is compatible with Western ideas about democracy, such as Islam's emphasis on consultation between a ruler and the ruled.

But Muslim countries have taken vastly different positions about the role that the Islamic religion should play in government. In the countries that appear to have made the most progress toward democracy, like Turkey and Malaysia, the secular nature of their government institutions and legal systems is established in their constitutions.

In other countries, by contrast, the constitutions give a special place to Islam and to Islamic law, or Shariah. Some of the constitutions say that Shariah is the basis of all legislation, others that Shariah is a source. Iran has put absolute political and legal power in the hands of its Islamic clerics, who can and do veto the decisions of the elected parliament. Their influence is extensive. Women, for instance, have the right to vote, and even run for office, but not to go out uncovered in public.

Is that democracy?

"If by democracy we mean the rule of the majority and respect for the right of the minority, I cannot see how an Islamic state, or any religious state, could be democratic," says Sohrab Behdad, an Iranian-American professor at Denison University in Ohio.

'ONE MAN, ONE VOTE, ONE TIME'

Before Iranian parliamentary elections in February, clerics disqualified 2,400 pro-reform candidates from running, including dozens of members of the parliament. Another 1,200 would-be candidates dropped out of the race in protest. In the elections, not surprisingly, candidates allied with the hardliners won a majority of seats.

Other Muslim countries have tried to keep religious parties out of the political process altogether. In Algeria, in 1992, the military stepped in to prevent a religious fundamentalist party called the Islamic Salvation Front from taking power through parliamentary elections. The military said it acted to protect democracy from militants who intended to create a religious state. A bloody civil war followed.

Many political analysts say other Muslim nations could face the same dilemma if fundamentalists win elections: Democracy in the Muslim world could turn out to be "one man, one vote, one time"--meaning a democratic election followed by fundamentalist rule, and no more elections. What happened in Algeria provided many Arab leaders with a justification for banning political parties and limiting people's freedom to criticize their governments.

The result, say democracy advocates, is that most Arab countries are unprepared for democratic change, even if the opportunity for real political participation opened up. As Anwar al-Bounni, a human rights lawyer in Syria, told The Times earlier this year: "If the regime left today, there would be no one to run this country. There has been no political life for 40 years."

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand one of the most important questions facing the post-9/11 world: whether the Islamic religion and democracy are compatible.

CRITICAL THINKING: Early in the article, the writer notes that one of the stated objectives of the U.S. in Iraq is to improve security so there can be free elections and the drafting of a new constitution.

Ask students why a constitution is important. (A country's constitution is its basic code of laws---laws that can unite people by defining their rights and their government's responsibilities and authority--and limits on that authority.)

RELIGION VS. CULTURE: Note that in Bangladesh, Malaysia, Turkey, and Indonesia elections take place on a regular basis.

Ask students to suggest a reason why these Islamic countries accept democracy while other Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, "and Egypt, do not.

Before students respond, direct them to page 20, where the article reports that freedom of expression, tolerance, and respect for courts are not incompatible with Islam. So why do some Muslims reject democracy?

Ask students to ponder whether the obstacle is religion or a mix of culture and history. Help them see the different impact religion and culture can have by citing an example from World War II: Catholics and Protestants from democracies joined hands to fight fascist Italian Catholics and Protestants from Nazi Germany. Why did some Catholics and some Protestants defend democracy while other Catholics and Protestants fought to destroy it? Is the answer religion or culture?

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

* Do you agree with professor Sohrab Behda that religious states cannot be democratic?

* Was the U.S. a democracy before women and African-Americans were allowed to vote?

FAST FACT: There are about 3 million Muslims in the United States.

WEB WATCH: www.usip.org/pubs /specialreports/sr93.html is a U.S. Institute of Peace white paper on Islam and democracy.

1. Part of President Bush's stated rationale for the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was to plant the seeds of democracy in the region and

a topple authoritarian regimes.

b enforce UN sanctions against both countries.

c ensure uninterrupted oil supplies to the U.S.

d prevent the spread of the Islamic religion.

2. Regular elections are a hallmark of true democracies. Other hallmarks of true democracies include

a government protection of the rights of business.

b peaceful, transfers of power.

c government support of religion.

d free education for all who are qualified.

3. Three Islamic countries that hold regular and free elections are Malaysia, Indonesia, and

a Somalia.

b Libya.

c Turkey.

d Yemen.

4. Religious fundamentalists in the Middle East could pose a threat to democratic movements because they

a have many Leaders who are military officers.

b have the support of grassroots groups that can threaten voters.

c have more money than most governments.

d control many newspapers and other news media.

5. The best description of Islamic countries where religion does not dominate government is

a constitutional

b parliamentary.

c presidential.

d secular.

6. The article provides evidence that Islam by itself is not an impediment to democracy. What do you think accounts for the fact that so many Islamic countries are not democracies?

Answer Key

1. (a) topple authoritarian regimes. 2. (b) peaceful transfers of power. 3. (c) Turkey. 4. (b) have grassroots groups that can threaten voters. 5. (d) secular. 6. Answers will vary, but could include the idea that their cultures and histories have more impact on their views of democracy than Islam.

Susan Sachs is Istanbul bureau chief for The New York Times.