The dilemma of Islamism

Jérémie Lebel

Column



Of all things Arab Spring, the rise of Islamism is perhaps the most discussed. An increased role for religious-minded parties appears inevitable in all post-revolution political orders, causing endless debates about whether we should already write the obituary of democracy or welcome the integration of the believing into the mainstream fold. Should we fear the diffusion of an Iran-styled model of theocracy? Not quite. Yet, I think there is a case to be made for liberal values beyond cultural differences. I’ll make the point that the advent of democracy is in itself a good thing, even and because it includes Islamist parties, but that Islamist ideas should still be fought, but in a democratic and rational way.

To begin with, not all Islamist parties are the same. First off, they very rarely are transnational. That affects their programs quite a lot. Ennahda, for instance, is a Tunisian party before being Islamist. Of course, its leaders do feel sympathy for the Palestinian cause, but the same could be said about the Liberal Party of Canada and the Tamil Cause. Ennahda has no ambition to create a caliphate uniting all Maghreb countries: it merely wants to lead Tunisia. It is also a political party first and foremost, as opposite to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is a social movement / militia / terrorist movement / political party. Ennahda doesn’t provide social services, and when it does so it is to gain votes, just like our political parties used to hand out gifts to lure potential voters back in the 40’s. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is of another ilk. They are at first a network of networks, a social movement dedicated to the islamization of society. Their party, Freedom and Justice, is a recent creation. The Lebanese Hezbollah, as mentioned, is again another kind of entity altogether. To label it a “terrorist movement” isn’t so much incorrect as incomplete.

Islamist parties differ on so many aspects that the label becomes almost useless when it comes to describing reality. Two different parties in the same country can agree on using the label, yet present starkly divergent modes of organization, aims and, to some point, worldviews. The Egyptian Salafi An-Nour Party, for example, is quite a lot more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood. Even if some members of the Brotherhood share its views on morals, they don’t necessarily share their extreme focus on social and sexual mores or their views on how to take decisions.

We can however put forward a few general truths. All parties who call themselves Islamist, or Islamic to respect their phrasing, believe that religion should play a larger role in society and government. They think that bringing back religion into politics will have a beneficial moral influence on it. Most associate Arab culture with Islam, and believe that a revival of Islam is key to a revival of Arab societies (neo-fundamentalist parties, like An-Nour, don’t care about culture so much as about observing a moral code). We can also safely say that most religious-minded politicians hold conservative views of society and morals. It’s just like if someone created a “Christian Renewal Party of Canada”: you wouldn’t expect that party to loudly advocate for the integration of a course on sex-change operations at kindergarten.

Let’s also say this: no matter what we think of it, the cat’s out of the box and we can’t wish it away. Political parties exist to fill a demand, and Islamist parties are no exception to that rule. Democracy is about resisting our wish to eliminate discomfort with force. It has no strength if it depends on repression. Defenders of liberal ideas should resist the temptation to approve of less-than-democratic compromises in the name of keeping the Islamist peril at bay. Ideas are best fought by other ideas, not by strong men with guns.

Besides, religion itself will neither put people back to work or root out corruption, two of the most pressing issued at hand right now. At least, having Islamists in power will make that quite clear. Islamism leading to de facto secularization of politics is a very real possibility, as the daily workings of politics will make it obvious that Islamist parties are, in the end, only parties, with the fallibility it entails.

There is however a case to be made that the intrusion of religion into politics is a danger to freedom, and that the State should remain above the fray. I am not merely defending “tolerance” toward faiths other than Islam, as some understand freedom of religion: I am advocating for the absolute right to change religion from or toward any faith, the right not to have any faith, the right to proselytize for any system of thought (apart from obvious restrictions to hate speech), the right to marry and live outside of faith, and in an ideal world the absence of religious education other than comparative.

Most of those rights are things we take for granted. However, in most Arab countries they don’t exist or are restricted in their reach. Tunisia is commonly called secular, yet a Muslim woman isn’t allowed to marry a non-Muslim man. Restrictions to proselytizing for Christians are not uncommon throughout the Arab World. In Egypt and Lebanon, just to cite those examples, civil marriage doesn’t exist. Apostasy laws – public punishment for renouncing Islam – are mercifully rare, although society usually holds a dim view of people who renounce their religion.

In my opinion, freedom of religion is the same as freedom of conscience. A religion is a particular system of beliefs describing the world, giving a meaning to it, and giving instructions as to how to live. It is not intrinsically different from other systems of thought, apart from its pretension to emanate from a supernatural source. There is thus no justifiable reason to limit freedom of religion. Limiting it, or basing public services on religious belonging or un-belonging, is the same as limiting freedom of conscience. Once that is recognized, political debates about religion become incomparably clear. Would it make sense for a State to forbid marriage between a liberal and a libertarian? Would it make sense for a state to forbid conservatives to spread their views, even if 98% of the population is socialist?

Keeping the state secular is an ideal worth defending, which I believe is inseparable from the defence of democracy. When the soul isn’t free, the citizen isn’t either. That’s why my position, as a defender of liberal democracy, is to advocate against Islamist propositions, all the while approving of their right to defend them.