Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
This blog originally appeared on www.freedomcollection.org.
Might the Muslim world grow more democratic and less free? This troubling question has pressed itself home amidst the recent spate of violence aimed at America and the West in response to a trailer for an apparently non-existent film ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed. Even moderate voices within the region that have denounced the violence have mostly paired this with calls for new prohibitions and international laws criminalizing the expression of ideas that offend religious sensibilities. I have not seen the film, which has been described often as crude and amateurish. The man who seems to have been behind it has reportedly served time for bank fraud and falsely put out the claim that his work was made by Israelis and financed by Jews. In short, there is nothing to like about him or what he has done. But the more important question is his right to do it. The relationship between freedom and democracy is paradoxical. Each requires the other. You cannot have a democratic election without freedom of expression, and conversely no undemocratic regime has ever allowed its subjects a full range of freedoms. But while they are mutually dependent, there is also an inherent tension between freedom and democracy. Freedom means the absence of constraints, while democracy is a way of making constraints, i.e., laws. The ancient Greek philosophers looked upon democracy as a debased form of government, fearing the tyranny of the majority. And America’s founding fathers, schooled in classical thought, shied away from using the term democracy even while they created the world’s first example of rule by the people. Their unease was not just rhetorical. They devised an indirect method of election of the President and Senate precisely because they distrusted democracy. Their fears proved unfounded. American democracy did not degenerate into “mobocracy,” and over the generations the American system has been reformed repeatedly in the direction of more perfect democracy, almost always with success. Similar success has been enjoyed by other nations that took inspiration from the American experiment and created democracies of their own. Now, however, the Middle East is trying to square the circle as it attempts a welcome and overdue political transformation. This is a region where religious sensibilities are especially intense. Public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that large majorities of people in those countries say that they want democracy but the same respondents also say they want the rule of Shariah, Islamic law. In a similar vein, a well-respected leader of an Islamic political movement told me that he wants the imposition of Shariah, but he does not want it imposed by force. He envisioned a democratic process in which duly elected representatives would enact Shariah as the law of the land—in his own country and wherever Muslims are in the majority. I did not doubt the sincerity of his adherence to democratic procedures, but I also did not find his vision reassuring, although he hoped it would be. The problem is that every Muslim-majority country is also the home to non-Muslims who would perforce be compelled to observe religious rules that they did not find meaningful—even if imposed through proper legal methods. But that is only the beginning of what is wrong with this model. There are also many Muslims (just as there are members of other faiths probably even in greater proportion) whose observance of religious law is not strict or not as strict as some of their co-religionists believe it should be or who choose not to observe at all. There are women whose faith is dear to their hearts but who do not except all the strictures on women that Shariah is often interpreted to require. Religious law observed by believers voluntarily is one thing; its imposition by the state—however democratically—is something else. The challenge of achieving a humane political order is to balance democracy and freedom. Historically that challenge has been met by most societies more successfully than political philosophers had feared. But it is about to get a new, stiff test as popular rule comes to the Middle East.
This post was written by Joshua Muravchik, Fellow in Human Freedom at the George W. Bush Institute.
Joshua Muravchik is the author of nine books, including The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East (2009), Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (2001), and Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny (1991). He has published more than 400 articles on politics and international affairs. Muravchik is an adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and an adjunct professor at the Institute for World Politics. He is also a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies.
Muravchik serves on the editorial boards of World Affairs, Journal of Democracy, and Journal of International Security Affairs. He formerly served as a member of the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion, the Commission on Broadcasting to the People’s Republic of China, and the Maryland Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Previously he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Chinese Prisoner’s Death Holds a Message for Americans and China
Liu Xiaobo, China’s most prominent dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner died this week. His death holds a message for Americans and for China.
Release of Chinese Political Prisoner a Timely Reminder to Support Freedom Advocates Abroad
More than half the world’s population still lives in countries where basic political rights and civil liberties are only partly respected, if at all.
Bringing Freedom to the Forefront of 21st Century Politics
Is the global liberal democratic order in danger? Purposefully constructed in the aftermath of World War II, this order -- and the American leadership that is central to its success --has contributed to securing peace and expanding prosperity in the United States and around the world. Today, that order appears to be dissolving. This crisis is not new or sudden; it has been mounting for several years. Global challenges like authoritarian capitalism, violent extremism, demographic pressures, and displaced populations have placed global freedom in decline. Fraying traditional alliances united by core values of freedom are increasingly weak to respond. It is alarming that the downdraft in democratic resilience over the past decade or more includes countries that have long been part of the consolidated democratic West. This is democratic deconsolidation. In much of the Western world, we see a rise in demagogic populism, illiberalism, nationalism, protectionism, and waning conf
The Importance of Speaking Truth to Tyrants
What the president of the United States says matters. Even during the realpolitik policies of détente under Richard Nixon, it was still clear that American policy was based on a set of core values. Nixon’s practical goals of reaching deals with America’s adversaries was never based on the “great chemistry” with himself or praising the Soviet or Communist Chinese leadership doing a “fantastic job.” When the president aligns himself with the autocrats and dictators, he aligns America with their oppression. He sends a message that corruption and brutality are not our concern. Contrast that with how Ronald Reagan defied much of world opinion in calling out the brutality of the Soviet system. Natan Sharansky, then a refusenik imprisoned in a Soviet gulag, later wrote for the Weekly Standard of his thoughts on Reagan’s pronouncement that the USSR was an evil empire: “It was the great, brilliant moment whe