CSID Sixth Annual Conference Report – April 22-23, 2005:
“Democracy and Development:
Challenges for the Islamic World”
By Layla Sein
CSID Conference Coordinator
The Center for Islam and Democracy (CSID) held its Sixth Annual Conference in Washington, DC on April 22 – 23, 2005 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. The conference theme, “Democracy and Development: Challenges for the Islamic World” echoed in presentations given by 36 scholars in seven panel sessions, including an “Open Forum for Muslim Democrats,” and keynote addresses delivered during two luncheons and the annual banquet. This conference provided a platform for important debates and discussions by scholars, policy makers, activists, and the media, as they addressed the uncertainty, confusion and fear generated by 9/11 and how it has created an environment in the Muslim world conducive to the promotion of democracy. About 200 scholars, diplomats, government officials, democracy scholars and professionals attended the conference, and participated in the stimulating and lively debates that followed each of the sessions.
The Program Committee Chair, Asma Afsaruddin {[Bio]}, welcomed the guests and highlighted CSID’s growing influence and activity and its “diverse and vibrant membership.” When she talked about the components of this year’s program, which she deemed “the best ever in quality and content,” she noted the comprehensiveness of the program with presenters discussing both theoretical and experiential perspectives on the relationship between Islam and democracy. She added that the intent of the conference is “not to provide the right answers, but to pose the right questions.”
In his opening remarks, CSID President, Radwan Masmoudi {[Bio]}, described the growing interest in the spread of democracy in the Muslim world as “momentous,” noting that Muslim leaders and activists must take advantage of this “historic window of opportunity.” He stated that the discourse surrounding Islam and democracy is no longer “whether Islam and democracy are compatible, but rather, how they are compatible.”
The presentations in Session One, “Internal Resources and their Relevance,” chaired byLouis J. Cantori {[Bio]}, were captivating and instructive as they established comparative historical models to examine the theoretical and experiential perspectives on Islam and democracy. In his presentation on “Islam, Development, and the Social Construction of Religion,” Robert F. Shedinger {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} began his discussion on the consequences of social construction of religion in the Islamic world by raising the question: “What is religion?” In his analysis of religion, he explored how the imposition of “western sacred/profane dualism on the Islamic world may affect development by either fomenting the dualistic tendencies of Islamic revivalists, or by marginalizing Islam to the realm of the sacred.” He questioned the need to examine, whether enforcing the western construction of religion on Muslim societies would not lead them to some of the same pitfalls of western democracies, namely rampant economic inequality and unjust economic development.
In his presentation titled “Reconciling Secular Government with Islamic Law,” Imad ad-Dean Ahmad {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} examined the compatibility of Islamic law with the French, British and American models of secularism by stating that the French model “is incompatible with Islamic law ‚Ķ [while] the American model is more protective than the British model of both the polity and religion, and the most compatible with the defense of minority rights, and that Muslim scholars should now consider its merits in an Islamic context.” When he examined why religious pluralism is the primary means of achieving a secular Islamic state, he pointed out that it was religious intolerance and authoritarianism that led to the decline of the Muslim civilization.
In his presentation “Is Secularism a Prerequisite or a Result of Democracy? Islamists at the End of History,” Shadi A. Hamid {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} highlighted the Muslim Brotherhood experience in Jordan to argue that a process of de-Islamization occurs when Islamist parties are incorporated into the democratic system, and that therefore, secularism is not in fact, a prerequisite to democratic governance or participation. Through his extensive research, Hamid found that mainstream Islamists have moderated their rhetoric, and abandoned divisive social causes. He also noted that their main political objective has been to democratize Jordan’s political system.
In “Islam and Civil Society in Indonesia,” Robin Bush {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} examined how the building blocks for an Islamic civil society found in Indonesia, the third largest democracy and largest Muslim nation in the world, are applicable to other areas of the Muslim world. She examined how Muslim NGOs are responsible for dictating what Muslim civil society looks like, since they are at the heart of Indonesia’s thriving civil society. Bush outlined how these organizations use Islamic texts to prove doctrinal support for democratic ideals, and tailor those ideals to the particular programs they want to implement.
Four scholars gave presentations in Session Two titled “Paradigms for Economic Development,” chaired by Robert Schadler. In his presentation “Barriers to Economic Development,” Paul Sullivan [Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)] analyzed the economic/political state of affairs in the following countries to point out the barriers to development: Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Israel. In so doing, Sullivan stated that although Israel is located in a dangerous neighborhood, and its economy suffers, it is still richer than all of its neighbors combined. This, of course, is due to its focus on education, economic development, and innovation. Sullivan cited the lack of educational focus and political freedoms as barriers to human and economic development in the Arab countries.
Sofia Mariam Khilji {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} presented “Military Expenditure and Economic Development: A Comparative Study.” She explored the question: What is productive spending in governments? And is defense spending a public good? According to Khilji, there is no clear-cut correlation between military spending and economic growth, but there is too much being spent on military defense. She did a comparative case study between major countries in the Middle East to shed light on this relationship. She added that “Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Jordan emerge as roughly similar in many respects: geo-strategic location, regional and internal tensions, pro forma democracies and strong military establishments. Military expenditure dominates the government’s budget and the quality of life indicators are low on a global scale.”
In his examination of “Human Development: The Unallocated Natural Resources in our Muslim World,” Sherif Mansour {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} attributed the lack of freedom, knowledge and good governance in the Arab world to its leaders, while stating that the lack of political freedom and transparency is the reason for the deficit in human development. To understand the real impediments to development, Mansour questioned the viability of the following causes: colonial hegemony on Arab societies; the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; internal threats (a way the state-controlled media diverts attention from the rulers); external threats (Soviets in Afghanistan); and finally the lack of natural resources.
The fourth panelist, Nicole S. Bennett {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} presented “A Politic of Partnership: Government-Association Relationship in Morocco” where she analyzed how economic necessity and pressure from international institutions led to the government-association relationship in Morocco. The crisis of the mid 80s and 90s encouraged Morocco to open its doors to international financial institutions. Bennett confirmed that the lack of clarity of basic definitions between bureaucrats and state associations caused identity problems (e.g., deciding who is in charge of which position, and who is responsible for basic developmental tasks). Bennett added that since Moroccan associations have a great impact on society, working through the bureaucracy to establish socio-economic development is crucial.
The first two panel sessions were followed by three luncheon keynote addresses which received wide national and international coverage. Andrew S. Natsios {[Bio] [Final Paper(PDF)]}, USAID Administrator, addressed a rapt audience on “Democracy and the Islamic World.” He enhanced the tone of the conference with his main argument that “the problem in the Middle East is not Islam, it is autocratic regimes.” According to Natsios, democracy is completely possible in the Islamic world because “Islam has many characteristics that support democracy.” The captivated audience was receptive to this address as Natsios discussed the common origins of western and Islamic societies in order to dispel the myth that these are two, diametrically opposed groups. Natsios’ comment that “there can be no representation without taxation,” was also crucial in his analysis of the lack of democratization.
Carl Gershman {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}, President, National Endowment for Democracy, DC, gave the second luncheon keynote address on “Why Muslims Want Democracy.” According to Gershman, the four fundamental values that democracy can offer people in developing countries are protective, instrumental, constructive, and intrinsic values. Mr. Gershman defined “protective values” as being the means by which citizens can hold the government accountable for its policies and prevent corruption and abuse of power, as well as promote human rights and protect people from cruelties of autocratic regimes. He asserted that “instrumental values” promote economic development by triggering “a virtuous cycle of development – as political freedom empowers people to press for policies that expand social and economic opportunities.” For Gershman, the third value of democracy represents “constructive values” where people in developing countries learn from one another through pubic discussion. Finally, he spoke about how “intrinsic values” represent a system that enriches the lives of citizens by recognizing their dignity as human beings.
Gershman introduced the third luncheon keynote speaker, Saad Eddin Ibrahim {[Bio][Final Paper (PDF)]} of American University in Cairo, Egypt, as a “foremost democratic thinker who is also a courageous fighter for democracy.” According to Ibrahim, 2/3 of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims live under emerging democracies (Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Turkey, Nigeria, and India). Therefore, it is the Arab Middle East which represents 1/3 of the Muslim population that is in need of democratization. However, as Ibrahim stated, recent events in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt, have undermined the 1/3 that has defied the wave of democracy, as they have been hit with “surprising stirrings, surprising to those who watch the region with a mentality of Arab exceptionalism.” He spoke of civil society as being the first in line to address the challenge by taking charge, as is being evidenced today in Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco.
Session Three, “Voices of Muslim Democrats: Political Reform in the Muslim World” followed these three insightful and captivating luncheon keynote addresses. This session marks the second annual open forum created to establish a frank and open atmosphere where discussions by Muslim activists engaged in democratic reform in their home countries can help policy makers and scholars understand the difficulties faced by Muslim societies undergoing democratic reform. This session, chaired by Asma Afsaruddin, served as a platform for Muslim democrats from all over the Muslim world to share their experiences while voicing their hopes, fears, beliefs, and expectations. Muslim democrats participating in this unique forum included Hassan Razaqi – Iran; Merve Kavakci – Turkey {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}; Amina Rasul-Bernardo – Philippines {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}; Anara Tabyshalieva – Kyrgyzstan {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}; Saurjan T. Yakupov – Uzbekistan [Bio]; Mahmoud Rashdan – Jordan {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}; andMuhammad Al-Habash – Syria {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}. CSID believes that these forums are crucial for the development of an international network promoting democracy in the Arab and Muslim world.
The first day of the conference ended with the Annual Banquet which featured three keynote addresses: the first address was by Gretchen Birkle [Final Paper (PDF)], Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy Human Rights and Labor at the Department of State. She began by stating that “we face challenges to the promotion of democracy in the Islamic world.” She added that the US made a commitment to the promotion of democracy in the Islamic world and that Indonesia, Nigeria (specifically mentioning the CSID project), and Turkey are among the programs which DRL has supported in its promotion of democracy in the Islamic World. She went on to say that Arab human development efforts must undo centuries of repression, while stating that terrorism is a threat to such development.
Lorne Craner {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}, president of the International Republican Institute, gave the second banquet keynote address on “Progress and the Road Ahead” where he stated that democratic elections held in Iraq and Palestine have had an impact across the Arab world. Craner examined the democratic changes that have swept through Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. His statement, however, on how “images of Iraqis walking to the polls were visible on satellite television from Morocco to Malaysia” created a dynamic picture of the march toward freedom in the 21st century. He referenced events in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as reminders that democratic reform in the Muslim world is fast becoming a reality. His reference to “an opposition [in Egypt] rallying around the banner of Kafiya [Arabic for enough]” also created another image from the Muslim democratic dynamic.
The third, and most poignant, highlight of the banquet was CSID’s presentation of the “Muslim Democrat of the Year Award” to Anwar Ibrahim {[Bio] [Final Paper(PDF)]}, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Johns Hopkins University, and Senior Associate, St Anthony’s, Oxford University. Anthony T. Sullivan introduced Ibrahim as “a model and inspiration to all.” Ibrahim’s keynote address focused on “Islam and Democratization – The Winds of Change.” Having spent six years in prison on false accusations, he began by saying: “Let me not hesitate to say that there are still thousands out there in jail ‚Ķ for their political beliefs.” According to Anwar Ibrahim, democratization of the Muslim world can and must come from the Muslims themselves. He advised the Muslim world to renew its resolution to fight extremism, terrorism, authoritarianism, and despotism, noting that we should not “forget the acts of torture, brutality, and massacre committed under the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Saddam Hussein.” Insofar as the strategy for freedom, Ibrahim asserted that “the underlying causes for the recent progress of political reform in the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East, have their roots in the Bush administration’s ‚Äòforward strategy of freedom.’ ”
The second day included four panel sessions and one luncheon keynote address. Three scholars made presentations in Session Four titled “The Impact of Globalization on Democratization and Development,” chaired by Antony T. Sullivan {[Bio]}. In his presentation titled “Prospects for an American Muslim Polity: Implications for Muslim World Democratization,” Mohamed Nimer
{[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} began by saying that in order to analyze the prospects for an American Muslim Polity, one must explore American civil society, and ascertain whether there are sufficient social organizations working toward the common good. In so doing, he criticized American Muslims for not having representation in the American government after maintaining a communal presence in America for nearly a century. He also emphasized how American Muslims do not yet constitute a proper polity, and have not yet established sound financial bases and large institutions to be successful.
Tarik M. Yousef [Bio] examined “Islam, Development and Reform in the Arab World” by assessing the state of development in the Arab world prior to 1950. He used Egypt as an example. He argued that since religion and culture are extremely slow moving variables to take into account, one had to pay attention to the forces of political economy. He also added that after 1950, the state focused on intervention and pre-distribution: This legitimated it as a premier player in the political economy of the region, which created norms, expectations, and practices that have become long-enduring.
In his presentation titled “Globalization’s Impact on Development and Democracy in Pakistan,” the third panelist, Ahsan Iqbal [Bio] argued that globalization is like a balanced score card; it should be able to impact the political, social, and economic score card in order to avoid imbalance. He stated that South Asia and Pakistan missed out on the globalization window due to Pakistan’s various forms of governance and economic conditions, including military dictatorships and harsh regulations imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. Iqbal asserted that globalization has had a very negative impact on Pakistan, and that external interference has led to a distortion of Pakistan’s political economy and retarded its growth. He concluded by stating that without external intervention, Pakistan would have learned to work with democratic institutions.
Session Five titled “Women and Political Economic Development,” which was chaired byAsma Barlas featured four presentations. In the first presentation titled “Rape Law in Islamic Societies: Theory Application and the Potential for Reform,” Julie Norman {[Bio][Final Paper (PDF)]} addressed the development of rape laws in Islamic Societies. According to Norman, the problem is exacerbated in Muslim societies because the victim is being punished. Norman pointed out that although the Qur’an does not address rape per se, and does not make a distinction between consensual and non-consensual sex, it is an essential reference to addressing rape law since it discusses zina (extra-marital sex). In comparison to this absence, however, she adds that Hadith differentiated between consensual and non-consensual relationships. Thus, the question is how local customs have influenced the application of law. Linking rape solely to zina has proved detrimental to women. For example, in Pakistan, rape victims are punished for committing adultery (zina).
The second presentation was made by Saeed Khan {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}: “The Impact of the Hijab on the Political Participation of Muslim Women.” Khan asserted that for Muslims, the hijab represents a commitment to religion and establishes space in the public sphere. He pointed out that the rationale for wearing hijab may differ in different periods and regions. For example, since Indonesian society has not been the exclusive realm of men, the hijab is not necessary to increase women’s space in the public sphere; whereas in the Middle East, an Arabized style of hijab replaces local tradition with Arab fashion. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, however, male dominance has forced women to wear the veil, while in the US, hijab is a hybridized and unique form of political expression and identity.
Serap Kantarci {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} raised many issues pertaining to the veil and its meaning and history in her paper “More than Clothing: Veiling as a Cultural, Social, Political and Ideological Symbol in our Changing Society.” She pointed out that in the Hammurabi code, women were not allowed to go into the public sphere without head scarves. She asserted that based on her research, wearing the headscarf and not wearing it can be a stigma. Basically, she emphasized that the meanings of headscarf are different for different women.
In the final presentation of this panel, Mary Knight {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} had a very direct and poignant approach to expressing the importance of hijab to Muslim women and the challenges to educating women about their rights and responsibilities in Islam. In her presentation “Back to Basics? Reading, Writing, and Religious Extremism in the Lives of Egyptian Women,” Knight said that the hijab seemed to represent a sixth pillar of Islam for women. The media focus on the hijab is also problematic in constructing the image of Muslim women.
The luncheon keynote addresses on Saturday featured an address by award winning journalist and documentary film producer Anisa Mehdi of Whetstone Productions, NJ, and S. Abdullah Schleifer, founder and director of the acclaimed Adham Center at the American University in Cairo, Egypt.
In her address to an engaged audience on “The Tangle of Language: Challenges in Reporting,” Mehdi {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} highlighted the importance of labels and descriptions, clarifying that in the media “how we call things makes them real. It makes a man credible. It makes him authoritative or biased; spokesman or scholar; advocate or expert.” She highlighted the importance of language when reporting on war, terrorism, oil, abuse of women, and religious extremism since the improper use of words not only overlooks cultural nuances, perspectives and context, but also distorts the meaning of the story being covered. To analyze the subtlety of language, she explained how “language can keep progress mired rather than flowing.” For example, she examined the use of the words Allah and God and their implications. She added that the word “Allah,” in journalism is understood as an exclusive God specific to Muslims, whereas the use of God implies a universality of “our God” as opposed to “their God.” She also examined the meanings of the words jihad and hirabah by stating that jihad is understood to denote holy war, when in fact, it means “the struggle to be the best that you can be,” and that the word hirabah should be used to describe wanton acts of violence or war against society.
The second address was on “Arab Satellite Television: Its Impact on Development and Democracy” by Abdullah Schleifer {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]}. He stated that, ten years ago, there was no form of substantial TV journalism being produced within the Middle East. Therefore, he chronicled the evolution of such a genre in the broadcasting media world, and its impact on the Middle Eastern region. Schleifer referred to the second Gulf War in 1992, and how it presented a breakthrough in terms of broadcast media within the region, because there was footage from the field providing meaningful news stories as opposed to the usual videos or regional events from international sources. This set the tone and ambiance of Arab journalists, given their training in international standards of broadcasting. This creation of al-Jazeera in the mid-nineties and Al Arabiya in 2002 encouraged the establishment of Arab satellite stations throughout the region. Schleifer stressed that these Arab satellite stations are predominantly of pan-Arab orientation. Nevertheless, this is a positive experience regarding development and prospects for democracy within the region.
Panel Session Six “Barriers to Development” which featured four scholars was chaired by Joe Montville. In the first presentation “The Path toward Democratization: What is the Real Impediment?” Feriha Perekli {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} examined the reasons behind the failure of democracy in the Middle East. She analyzed the notions of ijtihad, ijma, shura, sovereignty, freedom, and plurality from a liberal Islamist perspective, and identified the existing authoritarian elites’ choices, person-centered politics, and policies as the major impediments in the democratization process in the Middle East.
In his presentation on “Political, Economic, and Cultural Barriers to Development in the Islamic World,” Adib Farha [Bio] identified the four aspects of Muslim society that need to change in order to “expedite development and growth ‚Ķ and curb the rise of extremism”: cultural, economic, educational, and geo-political. According to Farha’s agenda for change in the Muslim world, Muslims need to reclaim their faith from the extremists who have hijacked it; promote literacy; support vocational and technical training; resolve long-standing regional conflicts; and establish financial sector institutions.
In the third presentation “The Oil Peril to Democracy and Development in Muslim Nations,”Gordon O. F. Johnson {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} examined how rulers in oil rich countries are accountable for the well-being of all of their citizens. In so doing, he asserted that, “the impact of oil wealth under the control of anti-democratic forces can extend across borders to non-oil countries by supply of low-priced oil and anti-democratic teachers, curricula and religious leaders to other less rich countries. Oil wealth in some Islamic nations could thus be a threat to democracy supporters in other Islamic nations where democracy may have begun to take root.” According to Johnson, when the government has an independent source of funds like oil revenues, it frees autocratic rulers from accountability to anyone who disagrees with them in their country and neighboring countries.
In the presentation “Barriers to Development: How to Address Corruption and Oppression in the Arab World,” Imam Hassan Qazwini {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} asserted that corruption can be corrected with five essential movements: (1) promoting political awareness among the masses and eliminating illiteracy; (2) fighting poverty and strengthening a weak economy; (3) liberating the religious establishment from the influence of dictatorial governments by allowing religious authorities to function outside of the realm of government; (4) honoring the role of women in the Arab world since democracy can not take root if half of the society is denied such fundamental rights as voting and holding parliamentary positions; and (5) promoting democracy by stressing the democratic principles of Islamic doctrine to reverse the trend of oppressive dictatorial regimes that have plagued the history of Muslim states.
An examination of efforts for promoting democracy in the Middle East after 9/11 was the focal point in the last panel titled “Identifying Conceptual and Functional Pre-requisites for Democratization in the Muslim World,” and chaired by Najib Ghadbian [Bio]. In his presentation “Promoting Democracy in the Muslim World: From Theory to Practice,” Farid Senzai [Bio] examined the efforts of the United States government in pushes for democracy. Although he asserted that the development of independent NGOs could help promote the spread of democracy, he stated that the misappropriation of funds and the support given to unrepresentative NGO’s undermined the entire NGO community because money did not go to the most important or popular organizations – the Islamic ones; and that the US would do better if moderate Islamists were given more money and a bigger role in the promotion of democracy.
In the last presentation of this session, Bican Shahin {[Bio] [Final Paper (PDF)]} examined “Democracy with an Adjective: Liberal Democracy in a Muslim Society,” by confirming that there is no element in Islam that does not resemble democracy, and that for democracy to be viable it should be a liberal democracy with limits. According to Shahin, in order for sound democratic institutions to flourish, there needs to be a culture in place to foster democracy. He explained that democracy took roots in America because it was initiated by the prevailing culture. He also analyzed how “freedom of conscience” is an inalienable right, and that democracy should not make demands of citizens that go against their religious views. He concluded by stating that liberal democracy is more appropriate because it allows “freedom of conscience” and religion.
Hopefully, this conference will strengthen ideas that foster an agenda for change, as the Program Chair, Asma Afsaruddin stated: “The critical insights that have emerged in our discussions in the past couple of days concerning the complex relationship between democracy and development will continue to inform the future work and research for many in the post-9/11 world. They will create the proper framework in which these joint investigations will fruitfully continue through the coming years. By bringing scholars and activists from the West and the Islamic heartlands to our conference, CSID was able to establish a commonality of perspectives and aspirations which we hope will only further the cause of democracy in various parts of the world.”
______________________________________
The 6th Annual Conference was cosponsored by Partners for Democratic Change, The American Interfaith Institute, Basha Diagnostics, P.C., and Strategic Studies Initiatives, Kingdom Holdings, UK.
