Dreams of democracy

I remember when I held a leadership role during some humanitarian work among Turkic refugees in Pakistan. I realized early on that the local leaders' process of making decisions was very different from my style.

On one occasion, I asked the head of the community to let me know what his leaders and community members preferred about a service we could offer them. On the spot, he told me his preference, and it was without consulting anyone else. He made the decisions for all. No discussions were needed. He decided, and he saw that it was implemented. Nobody questioned him, either. This leader was working for the good of his people, but it was not in a democratic fashion.

In this day and age, the relationship between Islam and democracy in the contemporary world is complex. John L. Esposito and John Voll in their book “Islam and Democracy” explain that some Islamists believe that “democracy” is a foreign concept that has been imposed by Westerners and secular reformers upon Muslim societies. Esposito and Voll state that they often argue that the concept of popular sovereignty denies the fundamental Islamic affirmation of the sovereignty of God and is, therefore, a form of idolatry.

We are kidding ourselves if we think the Muslim world is anything but ideologically monolithic: Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan are just three examples. As Western governments continue to try to help establish a model for democracy in the Middle East, in particular, any gains can quickly experience setbacks.

Just in the three decades that I have been living in Turkey, I have observed the steps of the evolution of the road to democracy. It presents a broad spectrum of perspectives ranging from the extremes of those who deny a connection between Islam and democracy to those who argue that Islam requires a democratic system.

Whether a nation like Afghanistan can ever truly endorse democracy is a discussion for another day; however, Turkey is presently in a very delicate situation as to how the nation will develop.

In America and Europe, the face of democracy reflects a balancing of different groups. In other words, bringing together farmers, industrial workers, merchants and capitalists who represent interest groups. The other group not to be forgotten is the general interest group.  

The dilemma that nations where the majority is Muslim face concerns loyalties. These may be strong loyalties that hinder finding a common ground based on democratic principles. Turks tend to identify themselves as being either a “secularist/Atatürk follower” or a “conservative Muslim.” Mind you, either can be on the radical side.

I had hopes that the Atatürk/secularist would one day realize that there are issues that need to be addressed and personal freedoms that need to be allowed. It seems because neither side has been able to win the trust of the other that some issues remain unresolved and have not been able to be dealt with in a democratic fashion.

This thought struck me as I read an article in the Cumhuriyet daily (Oct. 5) by Ayşe Atalay, who points out in her piece, “Farklılık Demokrasinin Temel Taşıdır,” that certain steps to democracy are essential. Both sides are to blame for the lack of real progress in a true democracy.

True democracy is about being able to live with the right to exercise your personal freedom within the laws of the government and not be afraid to express yourself.

For centuries, places have existed where some kind of superior leader has used his will over and above the will of individual citizens. As we look around the globe, you can see some disturbing trends. We can see it is possible to have a "fair" balance between all the different interest groups and yet leave the consumer and the voter worse off.

I think the saying “One step forward, two steps back” fits appropriately here.

At present it seems that every solution we come up with seems to create more problems than it solves, so as we say in English, it's one step forward, two steps back.