Balancing Hope and Fear: Muslim Modernists, Democracy, and the Tyranny of the Majority

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Comparative Studies in Society and History Pub Date : 2023-04-25 DOI:10.1017/S0010417523000026
M. Abbas
{"title":"Balancing Hope and Fear: Muslim Modernists, Democracy, and the Tyranny of the Majority","authors":"M. Abbas","doi":"10.1017/S0010417523000026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, many Muslim modernists exhibited mixed records regarding democracy. On the one hand, they articulated cogent arguments that Islam was, at its heart, democratic in nature and worked to counter Islamist claims to the contrary. Some crafted robust visions for Islamic democratic governance. On the other hand, many of the same modernists forged political alliances with military authoritarian regimes. How can we explain this seeming inconsistency between modernist democratic ideals and their not-so-democratic practices? This article argues that this paradoxical pattern stems from a classic dilemma within democratic theory: the tyranny of the majority. After providing a brief history of majoritarian fears in Western political theory, the article investigates two prominent case studies from mid-twentieth-century Pakistan and Indonesia. The first examines Fazlur Rahman’s ties to Ayub Khan’s military regime in 1960s Pakistan, and the second analyzes why a movement of young modernists was willing to collaborate with Suharto’s New Order regime in 1970s Indonesia. Together, the two cases demonstrate that Muslim modernists balance their genuine hopes for an Islamic democratic future with persistent fears of majoritarian tyranny by advocating for constraints on the majority will. While these constraints can be controversial and even authoritarian in nature, they have important parallels in Western democratic thought. Ultimately, this article argues that Muslim modernists’ mixed records are a function of democratic theory itself rather than some Islamic exception to it.","PeriodicalId":47791,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Studies in Society and History","volume":"65 1","pages":"643 - 669"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Studies in Society and History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417523000026","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, many Muslim modernists exhibited mixed records regarding democracy. On the one hand, they articulated cogent arguments that Islam was, at its heart, democratic in nature and worked to counter Islamist claims to the contrary. Some crafted robust visions for Islamic democratic governance. On the other hand, many of the same modernists forged political alliances with military authoritarian regimes. How can we explain this seeming inconsistency between modernist democratic ideals and their not-so-democratic practices? This article argues that this paradoxical pattern stems from a classic dilemma within democratic theory: the tyranny of the majority. After providing a brief history of majoritarian fears in Western political theory, the article investigates two prominent case studies from mid-twentieth-century Pakistan and Indonesia. The first examines Fazlur Rahman’s ties to Ayub Khan’s military regime in 1960s Pakistan, and the second analyzes why a movement of young modernists was willing to collaborate with Suharto’s New Order regime in 1970s Indonesia. Together, the two cases demonstrate that Muslim modernists balance their genuine hopes for an Islamic democratic future with persistent fears of majoritarian tyranny by advocating for constraints on the majority will. While these constraints can be controversial and even authoritarian in nature, they have important parallels in Western democratic thought. Ultimately, this article argues that Muslim modernists’ mixed records are a function of democratic theory itself rather than some Islamic exception to it.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平衡希望与恐惧:穆斯林现代主义者、民主与多数人的暴政
在20世纪和21世纪,许多穆斯林现代主义者对民主表现出不同的记录。一方面,他们阐述了令人信服的论点,即伊斯兰教本质上是民主的,并努力反驳伊斯兰主义者的相反主张。一些人精心构思了伊斯兰民主治理的宏伟愿景。另一方面,许多现代主义者与军事独裁政权结成了政治联盟。我们如何解释现代主义民主理想和他们不那么民主的实践之间这种看似不一致的现象呢?本文认为,这种矛盾的模式源于民主理论中的一个经典困境:多数人的暴政。在简要介绍了西方政治理论中多数主义恐惧的历史之后,本文调查了20世纪中期巴基斯坦和印度尼西亚的两个著名案例研究。第一篇研究了法兹鲁尔·拉赫曼与20世纪60年代巴基斯坦阿尤布·汗军事政权的关系,第二篇分析了为什么年轻的现代主义者运动愿意与20世纪70年代印度尼西亚苏哈托的新秩序政权合作。总之,这两个案例表明,穆斯林现代主义者通过提倡限制多数人的意愿,在他们对伊斯兰民主未来的真正希望与对多数人专制的持续恐惧之间取得了平衡。虽然这些限制在本质上可能是有争议的,甚至是专制的,但它们在西方民主思想中有重要的相似之处。最后,本文认为,穆斯林现代主义者的混合记录是民主理论本身的功能,而不是伊斯兰教的例外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Comparative Studies in Society and History (CSSH) is an international forum for new research and interpretation concerning problems of recurrent patterning and change in human societies through time and in the contemporary world. CSSH sets up a working alliance among specialists in all branches of the social sciences and humanities as a way of bringing together multidisciplinary research, cultural studies, and theory, especially in anthropology, history, political science, and sociology. Review articles and discussion bring readers in touch with current findings and issues.
期刊最新文献
The Suffering Subject: Colonial Flogging in Northern Nigeria and a Humanitarian Public, 1904–1933 Flexible States in History: Rethinking Secularism, Violence, and Centralized Power in Modern Egypt Navigating “Race” at Tahiti: Polynesian and European Encounters Editorial Foreword Parliament and Revolution: Poland, Finland, and the End of Empire in the Early Twentieth Century
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1