The issue of Democracy in the Middle East

In "Islamism and Democracy" Joshua Muravchik is quoted as saying, "The broader question is whether Shari'ah is in any sense compatible with democracy. Shari'ah, we are told, is God's law, and if Shari'ah is advanced as a political program, then it means that the state should rest on the sovereignty of God. But the essence of democracy is the sovereignty of the people. The two cannot easily be reconciled...."
He also makes mention of instances in which Islamists have taken power ie. Islamic Republic in Iran, Hamas in Gaza, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and "have been anything but democratic."

To address the first question of whether or not Islamic law can be compatable with democracy, we need only look at similar instances in history. It was not too long ago that democracy in Catholic countries seemed a "pipe-dream." Many believed, as it seemed to be the case, that democracy was compatible only with Protestantism(brings to mind the question of Kennedy's allegiance). This seemed to make sense as Catholicism encourages an obedience to the Church's hierarchy that claim to be direct intercessors of God's divine law... and as Mr. Muravchik stated above, "the essence of democracy is the sovereignty of the people." The Protestant democracies of Europe and the US historically also made a sharp contrast to the dictatorships of Catholic Central and South America(and the shaky Italian democracy). FAST FORWARD to today-> According to the "Journal of Democracy"- over 90% of predominantly Catholic countries are democracies.

Similar issues of allegiance to religious v. democratic practices were brought up in Hindu India, and Confucian Taiwan and S. Korea("East meets West" by Dan Bell)...so what's the "dealio" with the Middle East??

It is quite obvious that the people of the Middle East are fed up with their authoritative leaders->cough* cough* Iran. A 2005 Gallup International poll found that 78% of people in the M.E. considered democracy to be "the best form of government." The problem though is that historically the West has always supported these dictators as long as the oil kept flowin'->Operation Ajax in the '50s is a Perfect example of why the Muslim world is wary of us.

We also contradict ourselves when we demand democracy(Bush Doctrine) but then reject the winners, such as the case with Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections...or just as bad-> we look the other way when our allies forcefully crush democratically elected opposition groups within their own country as Mubarak did in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. That last instance encouraged Zawahiri to write a book entitled, "The Bitter Harvest: The Brotherhood in Sixty Years"-which basically made fun of and criticized The Brotherhood for trying to take part in elections and trust the US in the first place.

It is my belief that democracy can work in Muslim countries but instead of instantly rejecting the legitimacy of any group that may not be on especially friendly terms with the US, we should just sit back and watch to see what happens. It's been the case that more extreme groups have become more moderate within the perameters of the governmental system-> Fatah in Palestinian area is just one example(AKP in Turkey as well). I think that as long as we reject groups like Hamas and Hezbollah outright, we allow them to present themselves as a blemish-free alternative to the party(s) in power. Hamas was able to point out all the things that Fatah wasn't doing right and gain popularity. If we allow such groups to actually have a part in government, we open them up to showing their own flaws...and thus, fall from that lofty seat.

As for me, I certainly will be watching what continues to happen in Iran. Ahmadinejad was indeed sworn in today...but now he has to deal with a very fractured, divided, and angry Iran.