Islam is incompatible with democracy

Islam is incompatible with democracy

18 May 2004

The panel debate the motion: Islam is incompatible with democracy. Chaired by Anne McElvoy.

Arguing for the motion are David Pryce-Jones, Professor Raphael Israeli, and Amir Taheri.

David Pryce-Jones denies the argument that totalitarianism is ingrained in the Arab culture – an assertion which he believes denies reality. He suggests that democracy can only be achieved with the separation of church and state.

Professor Raphael Israeli suggests the motion does not concern the merits of Islam or the merits of democracy, since both are rooted in their own discourse and cultural context. For Israeli, the debate is conceptual and almost redundant, as Islam and Western democracy are the products of different world views, neither more, nor less, valuable than the other.

Amir Taheri looks at inequalities in language and translation. Pointing out that there was no word for democracy in any of the Muslim languages until a few decades ago, he explains that Islam cannot be understood in Western democratic terms, and must instead be viewed as an alternative to Western democratic governance.

Arguing against the motion are Andrew Wheatcroft, Sarah Joseph, and John Esposito.

Andrew Wheatcroft explains that the reason many Islamic countries today are undemocratic has less to do with Islam and more to do with their own historical experience; democratic values are not unique to Western style democracy. He looks at the communal values apparent in the Islamic faith and suggests that it is these that define Islam, not fanaticism.

Sarah Joseph uses examples from global history to support her argument. She explains that the fundamental principles of democracies are synonymous with the fundamental principles of Islam. Furthermore, Joseph illustrates that democracy can take many shapes and forms, not simply the Western (and vaguely understood) model.

Professor John Esposito looks at the history of the Middle East: its creation, borders and inextricable relationship with the West. Esposito explains that the process of democratisation is a struggle no matter the time or place. He explains that it is not only Islam, but religion itself that is incompatible with democracy.

First Vote: 218 For, 203 Against, 281 Undecided

Final Vote: 404 For, 267 Against, 28 Undecided

The motion is passed by 137 votes.

BUY THE DVD

Speakers for the motion

David Pryce-Jones

Journalist and historian
Professor Raphael Israeli

Professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem
Amir Taheri

Iranian-born journalist and author

Chair

Anne McElvoy

Newspaper editor

Speakers against the motion

Sarah Joseph

Writer and broadcaster; Editor of Emel Magazine
Andrew Wheatcroft

Historian
Professor John Esposito

Professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies, Georgetown University, Washington DC