Islamism, Pluralism & Civil Society
Mahir Sayar (Admin)
Some would argue that "civil society" is but another face for liberalism, and they can not be separated from each other. They question whether an "ideological" society (e.g. Ummah) could ever become a "civil" society? Muslim intellectuals ought to answer many of the questions put forward with regard to such issues.
Civil society is viewed as effective social groups that alone can engender a social balance of power and counteract arbitrary centralised tyranny.
Civil society is, therefore, a cluster of institutions and associations strong enough to prevent tyranny, but which are, nevertheless, entered freely rather than imposed.
Whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of peace and arbitrator between major interests, a strong civil society can nevertheless prevent the state from dominating and atomising the rest of society.
Civil society is also seen as the opposite of despotism, a space in which social groups could exist and move - something which exemplified and would ensure softer, more tolerable conditions of existence.
It is a complex balance of consensus and conflict, the valuation of as much difference as is compatible with the bare minimum of consensus necessary for settled existence.
In summary, a strong civil society entails:
1. Existence of rule-of-law conditions that effectively protect citizens from state arbitrariness
2. The existence of strongly organised non-state interest groups, capable of checking eventual abuses of power by those who control the means of administration and coercion.
3. The existence of a balanced pluralism among civil society interests so that non can establish absolute dominance.
Such a conception is feasible bearing in mind the spread of literacy and the creation of a mass print culture which enhanced social self-organisation. Horizontal linkages in society, free from state control, grew enormously in the West in the eighteenth century, and were properly symbolised by those varied institutions, from coffee shops to wig-makers, in which journals could be read and discussed.
In the Anglo-Saxon world, the mercantile society enabled and encouraged lateral social communication.
Explaining how despotism is at odd with civil institutions, Tocqueville wrote in "The Old Regime and the French Revolution":
"Any independent group, however small, which seemed desirous of taking action otherwise than under the aegis of the old administration filled it with alarm, and the tinniest free association of citizens, however harmless its aims, was regarded as a nuisance. The only corporate body tolerated were those whose members had been hand-picked by the administration and which were under its control..
Even big industrial concerns were frowned upon. In a word, our administration resented the idea of private citizens' having any say in the control of their own enterprises, and preferred sterility to competition."
Islamists are turning their attentions to the values inherent in a civil society which at the same time are compatible with the teachings of Islam.
Such a task is by no means a simple one and this is why Islam21 is sponsoring a seminar on 23 April 1999 under the theme 'Islamism, Pluralism and Civil Society".
Even though Islamic doctrines have little to do with the remarkable absence of democracy from most Muslim countries, nevertheless, appeals continue to be made to Islamic values to support anti-democratic practices.
On the other hand, a number of outside observers, in particular those adhering to the traditional "orientalist" school of thought, continue to argue that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Islam, they argue, is doctrinally and historically hostile to civil society and democratisation.
These are, ironically, supported in this by a small, but vocal, minority of Islamic activists who similarly contend that democratic values have no place in Islam.
The majority of Muslims, however, continue to show a strong attachment to democracy and see no contradiction between their commitment to Islam and their democratic aspirations.
Islamists ought to explore the myths and realities behind the competing arguments. They should question some of the prevalent stereotypes and simplistic interpretations, and look at the actual diversity of views and interpretations in the Muslim world.
Both Islamic tradition and present day realities in the Muslim world are rich in diversity, and tradition is being used and reused to support democratic movements, strengthen civil society and promote women and individual rights, just as the reverse is also true.
(http://islam21.net/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=401&Itemid=39)
Some would argue that "civil society" is but another face for liberalism, and they can not be separated from each other. They question whether an "ideological" society (e.g. Ummah) could ever become a "civil" society? Muslim intellectuals ought to answer many of the questions put forward with regard to such issues.
Civil society is viewed as effective social groups that alone can engender a social balance of power and counteract arbitrary centralised tyranny.
Civil society is, therefore, a cluster of institutions and associations strong enough to prevent tyranny, but which are, nevertheless, entered freely rather than imposed.
Whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of peace and arbitrator between major interests, a strong civil society can nevertheless prevent the state from dominating and atomising the rest of society.
Civil society is also seen as the opposite of despotism, a space in which social groups could exist and move - something which exemplified and would ensure softer, more tolerable conditions of existence.
It is a complex balance of consensus and conflict, the valuation of as much difference as is compatible with the bare minimum of consensus necessary for settled existence.
In summary, a strong civil society entails:
1. Existence of rule-of-law conditions that effectively protect citizens from state arbitrariness
2. The existence of strongly organised non-state interest groups, capable of checking eventual abuses of power by those who control the means of administration and coercion.
3. The existence of a balanced pluralism among civil society interests so that non can establish absolute dominance.
Such a conception is feasible bearing in mind the spread of literacy and the creation of a mass print culture which enhanced social self-organisation. Horizontal linkages in society, free from state control, grew enormously in the West in the eighteenth century, and were properly symbolised by those varied institutions, from coffee shops to wig-makers, in which journals could be read and discussed.
In the Anglo-Saxon world, the mercantile society enabled and encouraged lateral social communication.
Explaining how despotism is at odd with civil institutions, Tocqueville wrote in "The Old Regime and the French Revolution":
"Any independent group, however small, which seemed desirous of taking action otherwise than under the aegis of the old administration filled it with alarm, and the tinniest free association of citizens, however harmless its aims, was regarded as a nuisance. The only corporate body tolerated were those whose members had been hand-picked by the administration and which were under its control..
Even big industrial concerns were frowned upon. In a word, our administration resented the idea of private citizens' having any say in the control of their own enterprises, and preferred sterility to competition."
Islamists are turning their attentions to the values inherent in a civil society which at the same time are compatible with the teachings of Islam.
Such a task is by no means a simple one and this is why Islam21 is sponsoring a seminar on 23 April 1999 under the theme 'Islamism, Pluralism and Civil Society".
Even though Islamic doctrines have little to do with the remarkable absence of democracy from most Muslim countries, nevertheless, appeals continue to be made to Islamic values to support anti-democratic practices.
On the other hand, a number of outside observers, in particular those adhering to the traditional "orientalist" school of thought, continue to argue that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Islam, they argue, is doctrinally and historically hostile to civil society and democratisation.
These are, ironically, supported in this by a small, but vocal, minority of Islamic activists who similarly contend that democratic values have no place in Islam.
The majority of Muslims, however, continue to show a strong attachment to democracy and see no contradiction between their commitment to Islam and their democratic aspirations.
Islamists ought to explore the myths and realities behind the competing arguments. They should question some of the prevalent stereotypes and simplistic interpretations, and look at the actual diversity of views and interpretations in the Muslim world.
Both Islamic tradition and present day realities in the Muslim world are rich in diversity, and tradition is being used and reused to support democratic movements, strengthen civil society and promote women and individual rights, just as the reverse is also true.
(http://islam21.net/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=401&Itemid=39)
Comments