Democracy and Religion in Tension

In a recent op-ed contribution to the New York Times Pankaj Mishra argues that while the West often blames Islamism for the suppression of democratic ideals it is often in fact caused by a form of secularism which stands opposed to religion. Mishra points to Turkey as a test case and in particular the trial of Orhan Pamuk. Pamuk is on trial for mentioning the Armenian genocide along with the slaughter of 30,000 Kurds. The suppression of this genocide and slaughter, the disallowance of free speech, is actually caused by Turkey’s secularist democracy.

Mishra argues that for too long the West has argued for this east versus west, religion versus democracy worldview clash when in fact such a clash is quite different then previously perceived. In fact it is argued that for Turkey the problem is not one of Islamic extremism, but democratic authoritarianism. It is actually Turkey’s pursuit of democracy which has led to the suppression of free speech and the denigration of human rights.

Therefore as Mishra contends, one is too quick to see religious fundamentalism as the universal evil, the paradigmatic bad guy. It is to easy to blame religion when we actually need to be taken a harder and closer look at our own democratic ideology. Mishra writes, “The destructive potential of modern nationalism should not surprise us. Traditional religion hardly played a role in the unprecedented violence of the 20th century, which was largely caused by secular ideologies - Nazism and Communism. Secular nationalism has been known to impose intellectual conformity and suppress dissent even in advanced democratic societies.”

To a certain extent Mishra is correct in the case of Turkey. The country’s pursuit of democracy has often squelched religious and political freedom. With the Advent of Atatürk Turkey became reformed toward a western democracy. After Atatürk’s death Kemalism arose and instead of pursuing a furtherance of democracy the government and more particularly Turkey’s military sought to stabilize the fledgling democracy through autocratic methods. So in effect Turkey sought to keep its democracy stable and secure through the suppression of what democracy strives for. A paradox indeed!

So Mishra is correct to note that democracy gone bad, as in the case of Turkey, can have a stifling affect on freedom. However, religious fundamentalism, particularly in Islamic countries, cannot remain exempt from this charge of suppressing freedom. Does Indonesia, the heaviest Muslim populated country, fall out of Mishra’s radar? This is a country where true democracy would help stabilize and correct and otherwise backward and suppressive Islamic fundamentalism.

Again what Mishra also fails to recognize in placing some of the blame at the feet of democracy is that particularly in the case of Turkey they cannot be classified as a full and true democracy. They are striving towards democratic ideals but they still have a long way to go. So to conclude we can correctly state that democracy gone awry is often to blame for suppression of speech and basic human rights, but on the other hand Islamic fundamentalism as seen is such countries as Indonesia is not without blame. Today the story is often more complex than just ascribing only one guilty party. There are often much more factors to blame and while we must not be too quick to blame religion we must also not be too fast to place all the blame at the feet of democracy. As Mishra concludes we must carefully question our democratic ideologies, but we must also take a hard look at the Islamic suppression of western and Christian freedom.