Posted on 02/28/2005 10:03:55 PM PST by neverdem
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Doha, Qatar — WITH the emergence of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance as the majority party in Iraq's National Assembly, the scene is set for the drafting of a permanent constitution that will specify the Shariah, or Islamic law, as the main source of Iraqi legislation. This prospect is sending a chill down the spines of many Westerners, who see it as a preamble to the rise of a theocratic regime in Baghdad that would be a far cry from the liberal, secular Iraq envisioned by the Bush administration.
But such concerns are unwarranted. Just as in the West there are many constitutions based in varying ways on Christian morality, there are several models of an Islamic state. Instead of fretting, Americans and other Westerners would do better to examine how Iraq's neighbors have melded religion and government, and how well or badly they have succeeded in joining the modern world.
Obviously, the greatest worry is that Iraq will follow in the footsteps of Iran. Tehran's theocracy is based on an idea called "the rule of the jurisprudent," a concept that was developed in its modern form by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 revolution. Under the rule, clerics participate in the day-to-day running of the country, and have the power to ensure that all laws and regulations conform with Islam and the country's constitution.
It is highly unlikely, however, that Iraq will choose this path. Sunnis do not subscribe to the doctrine of rule of the jurisprudent, which is rooted in Shiite history and ideology. And while Iran is 90 percent Shiite, at least 35 percent of Iraqis are Sunnis, including both Arabs and Kurds. Since the interim constitution gives the Sunni Arabs and Kurds veto power over the permanent constitution when it is put to a public referendum, there is no chance that a Shiite legal concept will become the foundation of the country's law.
What Westerners tend to forget is that Iran is not the only Persian Gulf state to mix elements of Islam and democracy. Consider, for example, Iraq's neighbor Saudi Arabia and the small state of Qatar.
Last month Saudi Arabia held elections for seats in local councils for the first time in its 73-year history, a step that Qatar had taken six years earlier. The Saudi government made a great show of heralding the vote as historic, and cleverly sponsored an international antiterrorism conference in Riyadh, the capital, on the eve of the poll to attract foreign journalists who might otherwise not have bothered to cover the local elections.
But this official enthusiasm cannot hide the fact that the Saudi regime first promised political reform - including a written constitution and a largely elected national "consultative council" - in 1962. Thirty years passed before King Fahd issued the country's Basic Law; and he did so by royal decree rather than through any legislative process. When the long-promised consultative council was created in 1993, its members were chosen by the king rather than elected, and authorized merely to question cabinet ministers' decisions.
This helps explain why Saudis were so distrustful of their government's promise of taking a first step toward democracy that only a quarter of eligible voters registered, and only two-thirds of those went to the polls. And, of course, women were not allowed to vote, just as they are not allowed to drive and are required to veil themselves from head to toe. The religious police, armed with canes, often hit the ankles of those women who dare to show them in public.
In addition, alcohol, movies and dancing in public are banned. There is strict censorship of the news media and of books, whether published domestically or imported. Only Muslims are allowed to worship. Christians are not even permitted to wear jewelry containing a cross.
Islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, and all legislation is derived exclusively from the Shariah. Members of the governing House of Saud belong to the puritanical Wahhabi sect within Sunni Islam, and the religious legitimacy of the royal household is underwritten by the Supreme Religious Council, nominated by the king.
Things are quite different in Qatar. As the Saudi men went to the polls, officials and the news media here watched with a mix of quiet approval at the idea and regret at the disenfranchisement of women. Most of all, it made Qataris feel proud of their own political system. After all, they had their first local elections, based on universal franchise, in March 1999.
As in Saudi Arabia, the ruling family of Qatar is Wahhabi. And, here too, the Islamic Shariah is the main source of legislation - it states in Article 1 of the Qatari Constitution, which was ratified by referendum in 2003, that "Islam is the state's religion and the Islamic Shariah is the main source of its legislations."
Nonetheless, Qatar has a relatively democratic political system. The Constitution created a 45-member Parliament, called the Advisory Council, with 30 elected members. It may not be a full legislature by Western standards, but it is authorized to approve the state budget and monitor the executive authority, which rests with the ruler, called the emir.
Article 50 of the Constitution, which assures the freedom to worship, applies to all. The Anglican archdeacon for the Persian Gulf region is based in Doha. Christian groups can congregate in halls or private villas, where ministers, priests or pious laymen can conduct worship.
Equally important is Article 48 of the Constitution, assuring freedom of the press. In March 1998 the emir, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, abolished the Ministry of Information, thus ending censorship of print and broadcast media. The state-owned news media entities became independent public institutions. And, of course, the law widened the horizons of the most prominent Arab news source, Al Jazeera, which was established in 1996.
Women in Qatar are free to drive and wear jeans and blouses; you even see them in bikinis at the beaches and swimming pools. Women have the same political rights as men. In the first local elections more women voted than men; in 2003 a woman won a seat on the 29-member Municipal Council. The minister of education is a woman. Alcohol is served in the guest rooms of all 5-star and 4-star hotels. In my 4-star hotel, there is a bar and a disco. Such an arrangement would be unthinkable in Saudi Arabia.
Not that Qatar is perfect by any means. But if two homogenous Sunni nations, both with rulers belonging to the Wahhabi sect, can be so different, it is unlikely that Iraq, with its unique mix of religious and ethnic groups, will emulate an existing fundamentalist republic or monarchy. Instead of worrying about the mixing of faith and law, let us see how the emergent Islamic Republic of Iraq creates a category by itself among democratic yet religious states of the Persian Gulf.
Dilip Hiro is the author of "The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide" and the forthcoming "Iranian Labyrinth."
So why haven't they, then?
I haven't yet seen cause to worry about a theocracy.
What Iraq is developing towards is along the lines of what the Liberals fear most in our own country. Our Judeo-Christian heritage. We're not a Theocracy, and neither is Iraq likely to be. They will consult their own religious texts to root their natural rights to a power higher than government. IMO, this makes Iraq more likely to thrive as a free society than a godless European constitution.
The fear among some is rooted in the thought Islam is a religion that cannot be moderated. I disagree.
I am a Christian. I don't endorse the doctrine of Islam. It doesn't mean it cannot be liberalized into a religion in keeping with the natural desires of the human spirit. If you believe in God, wouldn't it follow that we are all created with the same desire to be free? Having been subject to their first experience with freedom and than chosen to embrace it with their elections, would they then choose tyranny? I'm sceptical. IMO, that newly experienced freedom is going to serve to moderate Islam since it's more fanactical roots are at odds with their natural rights.
For one thing, their societies are somewhere between feudal and primitive. Another is that it's such a novel concept to them. I heard or read somewhere that there is no word for democracy in Arabic. Another is that the closest democracy for many of them is Israel, which is hated by many, if not most, Muslims.
You replied to the question, while the writer of the piece spent all that time NOT answering that question. It's like saying "Vegetarians CAN eat meat." Well, that's nice, but..they don't, so it's a moot point.
I would add to that the economy of scarcity (especially water) around which much of the Arabic culture is formed.
The implications of severly limited essential resources are fairly well documented. No society has ever produced a democracy under those conditions
The oil producers can pay for desalinization technology.
Trus, but the culture itself developed pre-oil.
Modern media, technology and globalization are affecting all cultures.
Thanks for the link with picture of the American flag being waved and not burned in the Middle East.
Once again, you are correct, but cultures do not change as fast as technology. Modern media is generally affecting their culture positively considering xenophobia is a fundamental aspect and generally a result of isolation.
Although it can have the reverse affect. The more I learn about Arabs, the less I like them.
PS thanks for correcting my spelling earlier.
Nonetheless, Qatar has a relatively democratic political system.
They just don't have freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.