24.3.HamdiLimitOfWesternModel (1)

24.3.HamdiLimitOfWesternModel (1) - The Limits Of The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The Limits Of The Western Model Mohamed Elhachmi Hamdi Journal of Democracy 7.2 (1996) 81-85 Robin Wright and Bernard Lewis have a number of sensible and positive things to say about what might be called the "democratic credentials" of Islam. To their credit, both seem to recognize that Islam is not necessarily opposed to representative and accountable government. I begin with these words of praise in order to situate my criticism of their essays in its proper context. My goal is not to diminish their work, but to broaden understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, especially the non-Muslims of the West. While Wright does not define democracy, Lewis pithily describes it as "a polity where the government can be changed by elections as opposed to one where elections are changed by the government." I accept this definition without reservation. The problem is that Westerners tend to associate this definition with their own model of democracy, which is difficult to accept universally. It is often deemed dangerous to question Western democracy for fear of being labeled an antidemocrat; still, at least half of the world's population does not adhere to this democratic model. Is it unreasonable to wonder if this suggests problems with the Western model itself? Western intellectuals should take more seriously than they do the possibility that there are limitations to their brand of democracy. Consider the ever-increasing role that money plays in determining who can run for public office in the United States, let alone who can win. Money is so important in U.S. politics that it may in fact have more influence than the people themselves in choosing those who govern. Or [End Page 81] consider in how many countries Western democracy has failed to prevent racism toward blacks, or anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism, in fact, is a European product that could never have come about in the Islamic world, which is built on belief in the three main messengers of divine revelation--Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them. Although most Western writers speak of democracy as a universal set of values, Western deeds tell a very different story. The French, for instance, behave democratically in France itself, but not in Algeria, where they have committed some of this blood-drenched century's most horrific atrocities. This has also been the case with the U.S. government's policies in parts of Central America and the Muslim world. Nor are Western inconsistencies all that dampen the Western democratic model's appeal. Not all societies stand to benefit from a multiparty system, for in some circumstances such pluralism might only serve to deepen existing tribal or sectarian divisions (Rwanda, the Sudan, Liberia, and even Lebanon come to mind). It is also questionable whether the rule of 51 percent is a workable solution for many African and Asian societies, which need the efforts of all political groups, not only the one that gains victory in an election. On certain moral questions, moreover, Western democracy appears--not just to outside critics
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/28/2011 for the course UGS 302 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 4

24.3.HamdiLimitOfWesternModel (1) - The Limits Of The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online