Dr. Mohammad-Bagher Khorramshad^[1]

What is religious democracy? This may be the first question to come to one’s mind upon hearing or seeing the phrase “Religious Democracy”. The article at hand tries to find a suitable answer to the fundamental and basic question, to which various answers can be presented. The article at hand provides one of the answers.

To offer final answer to the said “main” question, it is necessary to find answers to a series of peripheral questions. The questions might be: Do by “Religious Democracy” we mean “democracy” in all religions generally or in Islam exclusively? Can one basically speak of democracies or there is only one democracy at all? Why religious democracy? Is religious democracy an artificial and nongenuine phrase or the phrase has been made out of putting together the two words of “religious” and “democracy” with difficulty? Alternatively, it is not basically possible to do that. Irrespective of all the definitions presented on religion and democracy thus far in a bid to provide two independent concepts, juxtaposition of the two will result in formation of a new phrase that has an independent and new concept. That’s a genuine concept with a new and special content.

Since “religious democracy” was raised for the first time by the ruling Islamists in Iran, so, their goals has been in fact Islamic or religious-Islamic democracy not merely democracy in any religion and in all religions. Subsequently, whatever will come here might not hold true with religious democracy in other religions. For example, it might not hold true with the religious-Christian democracy or religious-Jewish democracy. So, what this article means by democracy is the religious-Islamic democracy.

A reference to contemporary political literature would show that the word “Mardomsalari – (people-oriented)” in Persian language, that is the equivalent of the English word “democracy”, would bring about new words if juxtaposed with other words such as liberal, social or… The phrases created as a result would have special meanings. The phrase such as “social democracy”[2], which is a branch of socialism as certain groups of people so claim, believes in improvement rather than revolution in case of accepting the effect of the principle of democracy in social changes.[3]

Or take the phrase “liberal democracy”[4], which is said to refer to a sort of “democracy of representation”. That’s exactly what one of the wellknown Islamologists of the US, Bernard Lewis, has raised and dealt with in dealing with compatibility/incompatibility of democracy with Islam.[5] Consequently, it seems that different political and intellectual schools of thought have focused on a special kind of democracy and embedded it into their own school of thought. The said phrases are the result of embedding of democracy in different schools of thought or the result of dealing with democracy in the said schools of thought.

That Iranian Islamists have, instead of using the phrase “religious democracy” or “Islamic democracy”, preferred to use another coined phrase in the Persian language: “Religious Mardomsalari” The phrase is worth analyzing and justifying from different aspects. The independence seeking and indigenized characteristics of the group have made them use genuine and domestic lexicons and phrases rather than the Latin and foreign ones. Alternatively, they consider and define their own democracy in a way that is different to some extent with the democracy prevalent in the west. As a result, they have preferred to put the phrase on show since the beginning with the change in title and reference.[6]

At any rate, translation of religious democracy into western languages will end up with nothing but “Theo Democracy.”

Two major groups consider the phrase “religious democracy” as non-genuine, uncommon, inconsistent and unlikely. The people are among opponents of religious democracy in theory. The first group favors the kind of democracy which cannot juxtapose religion. The definition and approach of the group on democracy do not go with the definition and approach they present on religion, concluding that religion and democracy cannot be assembled. The other group comprises the pious who think religion and democracy cannot be put together and they are not of the same nature. On the other hand, the group of pious people or the religiously committed individuals believe religious democracy is an imposed, forged and non-realizable concept.[7]

The ones supporting religious democracy in theory too fall into two groups: The first group is the one believing that religious democracy is part of the political view of Islam in terms of government. They hold that democracy in the political ideology of Islam is a genuine element, being an integral part of the ideology of Islamic government.

The second group comprises those who think democracy is mostly a method of government; they do not oppose political injunctions of Islam and take it as a successful and positive method to attract, digest, mix and adapt with essence of Islamic government’s ideology. In the view point, Islamic government is a cause which can be materialized in different ways. Among the methods is the democratic method whose effectiveness and advantage has already been proved and touched upon. So, it can be used in the political ideology of Islam and one can speak of religious democracy through its imbedding. [8]

Those opposing religious democracy in theory have some presuppositions that based on them and through their juxtaposition the phrase religious democracy would suffer contradiction or paradox from inside. Among the presuppositions are:

a)     Democracy is a school of thought with its due theoretical foundations, which are not consistent with the theoretical fundamentals of the idea of government in Islam.

b)     Basically, government is private-oriented in Islam and the government’s mood of private-orientation is such an ideology that does not go with public sovereignty which is a principle of democracy.

c)     The origin and source of government in Islam is divine legitimacy, while in the democratic system the source and origin is people.

Consequently, legitimacy of the government comes from people and no one or nothing else.Consequently, the said presuppositions on democracy or religious democracy are not only suffering paradox theoretically but are also facing contradictory and defusing behaviors in practice, provoking its twin, i.e. religious democracy or fundamentalism. [9]

Now let’s see what democracy is. What is democracy in kind? What is/are the definition(s) of religion? Which definition on democracy is consistent or inconsistent with which definition on religion? What is the definition on religious democracy and its components? Why and how can religious democracy be called the democracy of the righteous? And finally what do we mean by the democracy of the righteous?