The Islamists Are Not Coming

Religious parties in the Muslim world are hardly the juggernauts they've been made out to be.

BY CHARLES KURZMAN, IJLAL NAQVI | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010

Do Muslims automatically vote Islamic? That's the concern conjured up by strongmen from Tunis to Tashkent, and plenty of Western experts agree. They point to the political victories of Islamic parties in Egypt, Palestine, and Turkey in recent years and warn that more elections across the Islamic world could turn power over to anti-democratic fundamentalists.

But these victories turn out to be exceptions, not the political rule. When we examined results from parliamentary elections in all Muslim societies, we found a very different pattern: Given the choice, voters tend to go with secular parties, not religious ones. Over the past 40 years, 86 parliamentary elections in 20 countries have included one or more Islamic parties, according to annual reports from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Voters in these places have overwhelmingly turned up their noses at such parties. Eighty percent of these Islamic parties earned less than 20 percent of the vote, and a majority got less than 10 percent -- hardly landslide victories. The same is true even over the last few years, with numbers barely changing since 2001.

True, Islamic parties have won a few well-publicized breakthrough victories, such as in Algeria in 1991 and Palestine in 2006. But far more often, Islamic parties tend to do very poorly. What's more, the more free and fair an election is, the worse the Islamic parties do. By our calculations, the average percentage of seats won by Islamic parties in relatively free elections is 10 points lower than in less free ones.

Even if they don't win, Islamic parties often find themselves liberalized by the electoral process. We found that Islamic party platforms are less likely to focus on sharia law or armed jihad in freer elections and more likely to uphold democracy and women's rights. And even in more authoritarian countries, Islamic party platforms have shifted over the course of multiple elections toward more liberal positions: Morocco's Justice and Development Party and Jordan's Islamic Action Front both stripped sharia law from their platforms over the last several years.

These are still culturally conservative parties, by any standard, but their decision to run for office places them at odds with Islamic revolutionaries. In many cases, they're actually risking their lives. Almost two decades ago, even before his alliance with Osama bin Laden, Egyptian jihadist Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote a tract condemning the Muslim Brotherhood's abandonment of revolutionary methods in favor of electoral politics. "Whoever labels himself as a Muslim democrat, or a Muslim who calls for democracy, is like saying he is a Jewish Muslim or a Christian Muslim," he wrote. In Iraq, Sunni Islamic revolutionaries recently renewed their campaign "to start killing all those participating in the political process," according to a warning received by a Sunni politician who was subsequently assassinated in Mosul.

KHALIL MAZRAAWI/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: ELECTIONS, ISLAM, MIDDLE EAST
 

Charles Kurzman is professor of sociology and Ijlal Naqvi is a sociology graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

MAIGARI

4:23 AM ET

January 9, 2010

The Islamist Parties in Muslim Countries

The writer has proposed some interesting hypothesis. He missed the point as to why "ISLAMIST" parties do not win elections in Muslim countries. This has nothing to do with religion.
1. The voters in virtually all the" US Allies" nations do not hace anything resembling democracy. The elections are invariably tainted, rigged and decided long before the voters cast their votes. Countries such as Egypt, Jordan, the entire Maghreb - North Africa - Pakistan and the Arab Middle east. In other nations, the situation hardly changes because at the end of the day, Washington and her allies decide whether the vote was free and fair. Take a look at the current government in Somalia. The Union of Islamic Courts could ahve won outright but the US would have none of that.
2. Hamas won a free and fair elections in "Palestine" but again the US would not brook that because Israel says so. Taday the palestines have been turned prisoners in their own Country and a corrupt and inept government imposed on them in collabaration of the Democertic Republic of Egypt - the gate keeper to Gaza!
3. last but not least, Islam does not really organise around political parties hence the reference to the much maligned sharia. It is simply a social code based on the Qur'an, Teaching and Interpretations by the Prophet; and the subsequent socio-cultural developments in legal interpretations for each society.
The much maligned justice (Shariah) system is actually a very insignificant aspect of the shariah. The feared and misunderstood huduud punishment are rarely imposed beacause of the sringent burden of proof. However, attempts by some Western governments, particularlt US and France to impose a unipolae veiw led to the revolts against the secular governments. In almost all cases, they corrupt, nepotic and extremely unpatriotic because they prefer to defer to the views of their metropolitan masters than the people.

 

RETINA61

8:03 AM ET

January 9, 2010

TURKEY and DEMOCRACY

i have read comments about Muslim countries and islamic parties. my name is ahmet yurdado?an and im TURK?SH. im living Turkey's small black sea resort city of the TURKEY with my mother. my home town is TRABZON province . im the one Turkish member of the foreign policy magazine. that is very big honour for me and other Turkish peoples. im also representing our goverment and all ideas of my country. my country have strong democracy and strong parliemantary siystem. we are differnet the HUSNU MÜBAREK's WOUNDED democracy (in EGYPT). there are still contiuned totaliter system in EGYPT and SYR?A. since 150 years my country have strong democratic system also womans everywhere. there are so many woman represantives in TURK?SH parlimentery. not EGYPT. hey MUBAREK you need strong democracy since 30 years you are ruling EGYPT. WE ARE also leader of other ARAB?C peoples doesn't be EGYPT BECAUSE DOESN'T HAVE strong democracy there still. SYR?A too. our great president RECEP TAYY?P ERDOGAN seems like islamic president that is not true. he is our great president and he is representing all ideas of the turkey. we love your president and his staff thats have done great jobs. now our one legs of my country in E.U. in future we will be member of the E.U. not egypt. hey mubarek man why didn't allow our convoy in gaza border? hey mubarek man when you will allow democracy in egypt. and you tell us EGYPT ECONOMY. my country one of the middle east fastest groving economy. egypt and syria seems like turkey's 1980's situation. that nations don't have free marketing economy. finally that country ''sneed more democracy maybe after 30 years their's economy could be my country(TURKEY's) economy.

 

HSCHMIDT

10:05 AM ET

January 10, 2010

Please no Turkey in the EU

I have lived in Germany for 30 years. There is a huge Turkish minority here which is almost completely Muslim. You might argue that the Turkish people in Germany are different from those in Turkey, but my assumption is that they actually are typical (except for a small progressive minority living in very big Turkish cities). The Turkish minority in Germany does not integrate with the rest of the German society. Even 3rd and 4rd generations of Turks hardly speak German well, and that has its reasons. The Turkish mindset becomes obvious when one considers that even now, many decades after the fact, the Turks still deny the mass genocide they committed on Armenians (who, of course, are Christian - are you surprised?). Christian minorities are suppressed in Turkey, while Turkish Muslims build mosques and minarets in Western Europe. In short: the perspective of Turkey joining the EU is frightening. Please just stay where you are. Thank you.

 

DIRECT_HEX

10:00 AM ET

January 11, 2010

Don't let the Jack Boot hit you on the way out

The only reason a lot of Turks aren't integrated into society is because you spent decades making sure they couldn't get their full rights and always complained about the same things you complain about right now.

If you had integrated, helped transition them into society and stopped holding on to your precious blood laws , it would not have been that much of an issue.

They rebuilt your country, you owe them a debt of gratitude.

 

MCMLXVII

12:48 PM ET

January 11, 2010

Well said!

@DIRECT_HEX

I agree completely. The xenophobia displayed by some members of supposedly "civilized" nations never fails to amaze me. You would think that they would have learned a thing or two from their history. Sad to say, that's not always the case.

I live in southeast Michigan in the USA. We have one of the largest populations of Arabs and Muslims outside of the Middle East. We have the largest mosque in North America. And you know what? We're getting along fine. It's amazing how many problems we can avoid when we treat our neighbors with respect. Give it a try, Herr Schmidt -- you don't want this century to be like the last one, do you?

 

HSCHMIDT

5:10 PM ET

January 11, 2010

Political correctness ain't getting us anywhere

My employers has always paid me for my work, and I do not expect him to be grateful beyond my wage. The Turks who, as you write, helped rebuild Germany, came gladly to Germany because they were paid there well for their work. Rationally seen, there is no reason for any kind of an additional gratitude.

Besides: on one ever has "become integrated". This is a slightly arrogant point of view. Turks are humans, not objects, you cannot "integrate" them if they don't want to, which makes the actual point. It is easy to be political correct and scream blue murder and call it xenophoby. But there is a reason why all (millions!) other migrants integrate very well in Germany--except for the Muslims. Any idea why?

Next point: there is a fundamental difference between the USA and Germany (or any other EU country). EU countries are national states, based on a long ethnicity-oriented tradition. As opposed to that, the U.S.A. was created by many different nationalities. It pays of to contemplate this difference because it explains why a mosque in Michigan has different implication than a mosque in, say, Berlin.

Think of it. The World out there is not like the U.S.A. I am not saying that the EU is a better place to be (not at all). It just has a different cultural background, and it needs to be respected.

 

WYCOFF

6:04 PM ET

January 11, 2010

I agree with Herr Schmidt

As an American, I am sick of my holier-than-thou countrymen who try to guilt European countries into adopting our conception of multiculuralism. They believe that Europe should be a carbon copy of the US. Europe, the homeland of Western Civilization, is comprised of various distinct, indigenous cultures. The multiculturalist hypocrites ignore this (or actively despise this)- they want Europe homogenized and, eventually, diluted beyond recognition. The same people who argue most vociferously against Western involvement in non-Western cultures (Imperialism! Racism! they cry) are those who argue most stridently for multi-culturalism in Europe and the US.

If the German people (or any other European nation) want to maintain their national sovereignty and retain their cultural identity, then they have the right to do so.

 

DIRECT_HEX

6:12 PM ET

January 11, 2010

Long Standing National Identity - Really?

Hang on a minute Herr Schmidt. Germany didn't have a national identity until Bismarck bashed it into shape. You were Prussian, Bavarian, Saxon and all that. So let's not talk about "long-standing" - its total misconstruction of history.

Secondly, the Turkish Guest workers were invited by you government. Due to the Bloods Laws, a nasty hangover from a period you would rather forget - only someone who had "German Blood" was allowed citizenship. Turks were never given the option of citizenship until the back end of the 1990s. That's almost a generation and a half after they first came.

Furthermore - you had to introduce new immigration laws because they were embarrasingly backward and have now resorted to sticking in citizenship test and all sorts - which is a common response by nervous EU elites in the face of the complete mess they've made of their immigration policies by pandering the undercurrent of race that exists

Thirdly, you forget the effect of rapid unification and what that brought about.

Fourthly, do you really think that German workers ONLY get their wage? There's an entire social contract involved in the working relationship. You expect more than just a wage, you expect due process, fairness, the right to appeal to workers tribunals and also you expect representation on the executive board of the company.

Fifthly, I'm not American, and I live in the EU. I've seen the "fairness" at work

 

DIRECT_HEX

6:14 PM ET

January 11, 2010

So when are you handing the US to the First People?

You know, you're absolutely right, indigenous people should be the only ones to live in that country - see you on the next plane to the Old Country then....

 

WYCOFF

6:54 PM ET

January 11, 2010

Wrong on both accounts, Hex

First of all, you're wrong about the history of the German national identity. The Bavarians, Saxons, etc. considered themselves Germans long before Bismarck. Have you ever heard of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" or, even before that, the Kingdom of Germany (with Kings like Otto the Great and Barbarossa)?

The "Germany is a recent development" canard is only true in the narrowest sense. For various historical reasons there was no centralized, modern German state until Prussia managed to consolidate most of the German principalities under its rule, but there certainly was a conception of "Germany" and the German nation long before that.

Your retort to my comment is self-defeating. You highlight one of the better examples of my objections and think that it supports your point. Groups of people that don't sufficiently defend their culture and independence from potentially powerful interlopers tend to lose their independence. History presents one episode of demographic and cultural displacement after another. If Westerners are too meek/ashamed/embarassed or whatever to set their own cultural standards in their own homelands and demand that newcomers follow them, then they will eventually lose their ability to do so. Try to step away from the post-modern myths of the "noble savage" and the uniquely evil white man. Is it wrong for Turks in Turkey to decide who and what is Turkish? If not, then why is it wrong for Germans in Germany to decide who and what is German?

 

HSCHMIDT

7:24 PM ET

January 11, 2010

"National Identity" is just a placeholder for a number of things

Well, even further back in time, small tribes were fighting other small tribes simply because they were just different tribes. However, it has always been common attributes, like similar skin color, similar language, etc., that contribute to the group identity. You will probably agree that a Saxon and a Bavarian indeed have more in common (or would say they have) than, say, a Saxon and an Italian? I hope you get the point. Another layer of the identity phenomenon is a common religion. Muslims have always fought Jews, and Christians occasionally fought Muslims - why actually? It just goes on and on. Ethnicity is simply traditionally correlated with that, and only a partial reason for a so-called "national identity" as we know it. It is easier to compensate such differences in a country like U.S., that was built on the idea of freedom and liberty (whatever that may mean to different individuals), but the EU countries have simply never been into that kind of ideology.
By the way: the "blood law" is still in place in Germany. Anyone who has a German grandma will receive the German citizenship, even if she lives on the other side of our planet and doesn't speak a word in German.
Further, I have never stated that the German immigration regulations were good or bad. I have not said that they have been improved, because that, too, is a subjective judgment. German immigration law is actually quite liberal, especially when compared to the U.S. immigration law. The result of that is, generally speaking, that poorly educated migrants who hope to enjoy German social benefits come to Germany, while PhD prefer going to the USA (it may be a bit exaggerated but you get the point).
Next, the German wages are not part of the bloated German social security system. In fact, the system is a misconception based on the assumption that it will only apply to a tiny minority of people in need. Instead, I know large migrant families who have never intended to get a legal job and yet enjoy the social benefits. It may mean that the system is broken (and it probably does), but it does not change the fact that a disproportional number of migrants (compared to their number in relation to the size of the entire population) is receiving those benefits. One reason is that those "foreigners" are detached from the society and never intend to integrate, and the vast majority of this group, again, is Muslim (just to get back to the actual issue discussed here).
So, since your argument was, if I got it right, "work -> wage -> social benefits", people who have never worked should not enjoy the benefits of the social welfare state, right? I am not agreeing with that to the extend that it probably sounds, but again, you get my point.
Finally (although it is off topic here), I think that many advocates of a "big government" in the U.S. should take a closer look at France, Germany, Italy and other EU countries and the downside of the social welfare ideology.

 

DIRECT_HEX

8:03 PM ET

January 11, 2010

I'll let Paul Krugman answer all that for me

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html

 

DIRECT_HEX

9:52 AM ET

January 11, 2010

That doesn't disguise the "secular" failure of the Middle East

What a lot of commentators fail to appreciate is that Islamic parties are often the only opposition to bankrupted ideas of Secularism in the M.E. A brief look at the political history of the region will show youth 9/10 independence movements in the M.E were secular ones. The idea of aspiring to the modern world and dumping the old staid ways of religion and tradition were appealing to the elites simply because they assumed that the old ways had lead to their fall from great civilization status.

Anyone noted how Ataturk, Pahlavi, Nasser et al pretty much sounded the same at various junctures of their reign.

As they took hold of and removed all secular opposition - the only real form of contest was Islam. For two huge reasons:

1) You couldn't really remove 1000 years of culture and tradition no matter how hard you tried
2) At various times they all courted traditional power brokers to keep themselves in power, there fore keeping Islamic ideals alive. Anyone noted how often Mubarak goes on about being the latest Salahuddin (Saladin)

The rise of this Islamic parties will continue as long as there is total lack of proper democracy in the region, and when you do get it - you might end up with Mr Erdogan.

This is a price we haven't wanted to pay in our western capitals, maybe it's time we did.

 

DANIEL

6:42 PM ET

January 11, 2010

People often forget that

People often forget that these hardline factions often have stuff opposition, especially in urban areas. What the United States should do is encourage opponents to take an iphone stand against them.

 

RETINA61

6:02 AM ET

January 12, 2010

please no Turkey in E.U

i didn't understand what do you mean? in mid 1960's german people invited my people(turkish people) an now you don't wanna see ours in E.U. E.U need turkey because now we are living dangerous world. we didn't forget El-kaide's (LONDON and MADR?D and ?STANBUL ) attacks they killed innocent peoples after these attacks. november 2003 was the 6th anniversary El-kaide's bloodly TURKEY's ?STANBUL explosions. MR.HSCHMIT i agree some parts of your comments and i have respect yours but you are only looking the past . you have to look forward. example my name is ahmet yurdadogan and im the one turkish member of d?g?taljournall.com and i didn't go to english course but i studied 2 universty in the turkey(economy and history and policy). yes there are some problems in my country(educunational and smart young person's job problem). example im representing Turkey and advocating our rights here but i don't have job. also i have a mother who need my support(she is breast cancer survivor ). i was saying EL-kaide's some attacks to main Euripion capitals mr. SCHM?T today in germany you are living comfortable. TURKEY was so important in cold war for the EUR?P?ON SECUR?TY . now El-kaide in pakistan and one day they could have Turkey and we are the bridge of the EUR?PA and Asia . our relations with E.U countries must be strenghten . we should work together about Terrorism and borders security issues secondly Energy issue that is very important the EUR?P?ON's future im calling germany and framce goverments you have nice places blue and clean lakes and green green mountains (like Tom jone's song GREEN GREEN GRASS OF MY HOME song ). hehe example bavaria mountains France's green towns BUT you don't have big energy resources areas . mr. SCM?T you must remember your grandfather mr. adolf hitler and his 1942 summer operation. for oil, gas and minerals but he didn't reach goal. today E.U same. you are so far in CENTRAL AS?A oil resources and without turkey you will not reach your goals. since years on we lived with honour with thAT geograpy and we are calling to E.U: if you don't wanna see my country as a part of eurupa you have to say openly.