ANALYSIS: The ‘cultural’ roots of liberal democracy —Ishtiaq Ahmed - Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Source : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\11\30\story_30-11-2010_pg3_2

A historical analysis of the origins of modernity would show that ideas did not always lead the way to modernity; on the contrary, the challenges posed by religious and nationalist wars, the scientific and industrial revolutions and concomitant social upheavals compelled governments, philosophers and thinkers to respond to them with solutions

Ahmad Ali Khalid’s op-ed, ‘Faith, reason and modernity’ (Daily Times, November 10, 2010), seeks to establish that “the roots of modern liberal democracy are in fact one dimensional — religious”. He leans on the authority of the noted German thinker Jürgen Habermas who reportedly observed: “Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.” Habermas’ sweeping statement is neither true nor false, precisely because it is a sweeping statement. It is not a systematic analysis of the much more complex and variegated origins and evolution of liberalism and liberal democracy.

I have tried very hard to grasp what exactly the author hopes to achieve by insisting that there is “in fact one dimensional — religious” origin of liberal democracy. If it is to prove that liberal democracy is possible or fit only for Christian societies then I am sure he would be hailed a great champion of fundamentalist Islam. On the other hand, if such a discovery is meant to set into motion a genuine search for Islamic roots of liberal democracy, then one should, on the basis of lack of evidence, be prepared to accept that no such roots exist. It is not logical to say that if we delve in Islamic heritage we will surely find liberal democracy hiding somewhere.

Ideas and ideologies must spring from somewhere, and indeed the long heritage of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love played an important role in the development of liberal thought. This was not because of theology as much as it was because of the plurality of laws governing different aspects of Christian existence. Church law was about spiritual and religious matters while economic and social relations were regulated by Roman law, English common law, Germanic law and other such sources. Christianity did not provide a theory of the state or government. Therefore, political theory always remained an independent branch of knowledge in Christian societies. Once the Renaissance revived ancient Greek philosophy, political theory proper became a major intellectual enterprise. Of the three or four earliest theorists of liberalism — not liberal democracy, which is a 19th century phenomenon that only in the 20th century became truly inclusive democracy — only one can be considered a believing Christian.

I consider Machiavelli a proto-liberal thinker because he favoured constitutional government once law and order had been established. His contempt for the Catholic Church was proverbial. Thomas Hobbes was also a proto-liberal thinker in the sense that he considered the state to be a human artefact, created by free men to protect themselves from harm that otherwise was always present in the state of nature. Hobbes did use biblical words and jargon but he was an atheist living in taqqia (dissimulation) to escape persecution. John Locke was a believing Christian. He believed in limited government and private property but also in slavery. He emphasised the importance of religious freedom but reserved political rights only for Anglican Christians. Catholics were excluded. Tolerance for Jews and the few Muslims who were then present in the English Isles was also emphasised by him. Rousseau advocated direct democracy in city-state republics. His relationship with Christianity was ambivalent, to say the least.

A historical analysis of the origins of modernity would show that ideas did not always lead the way to modernity; on the contrary, the challenges posed by religious and nationalist wars, the scientific and industrial revolutions and concomitant social upheavals compelled governments, philosophers and thinkers to respond to them with solutions. The first liberal constitution was that of the US. It separated the state and the church because the American colonies did not want the war of religions to continue in their New World. Obviously, the fact that there was no totalist shariah that Christian societies had to face meant that it was easier for thinkers functioning in a Christian cultural milieu to argue in favour of the separation of the state and church.

However, Christian societies became liberal democracies only through long drawn struggles. At least three routes — liberal-democratic, communist and fascist — were adopted by western societies to modernise. Liberal democracy did not emerge directly or easily in the west because of some distant link to Judeo-Christian theology as Habermas may appear to be suggesting. Even when liberal democracy did triumph in the wake of World War II, its institutionalisation in terms of distribution of powers and functions varied from country to country.

In the current times, non-Christian and non-Islamic societies have adopted liberal democracy as the framework for establishing a stable political community. India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are in different ways liberal democracies. Imagine them wasting time in a search for authentic roots of liberal democracy in their own historical baggage and not finding them or inventing them fraudulently. Would that have served any real purpose? I doubt it.

Intellectually, the more exciting and challenging task is to critically examine what the impediments are within the Islamic tradition to liberal democracy. The hard facts are that religious and sectarian minorities live in constant fear in Pakistan. Ever since the dreaded Blasphemy Law was introduced in 1982 and revised in 1986, Pakistan has been practicing its own variety of the Inquisition.

The latest outrage is that a poor, helpless, middle-aged Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, who is the mother of five children, has been pronounced guilty by a Pakistani court on grounds of blasphemy. It is only in Pakistan that a district bar council — that of Nankana Sahib — can pass a resolution opposing the mercy petition she has submitted to President Zardari. Pakistani lawyers had recently gained a good name for opposing the Musharraf dictatorship but it is doubtful if it was a struggle for democracy and human rights.

An Islamic liberation theology has been attempted with disastrous consequences in Iran by Ali Shariati. What it facilitated was the coming into power of the Ayatollahs. The Iranian constitution is a mockery of liberal democracy. The fact is that liberal democracy enables not only Christians but also Muslims to live in peace and security in non-Muslim societies. Only a secular democracy can be a liberal democracy.

The writer is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University. He is also Honorary Senior Fellow of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He can be reached at billumian@gmail.com