Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Tue109 2018

Last update19:14 PM GMT

Back to Homepage
Font Size : 12 point 14 point 16 point 18 point
:: Issues > Islamic Movements
Islamist Parties and Democracy: Three Kinds of Movements
Islamist Parties and Democracy: Three Kinds of Movements
Between 1991 and 2001, the world of political Islam became significantly more diverse. Today, the term “Islamist”—used to describe a political perspective centrally informed by a set of religious interpretations and commitments—can be applied to such a wide array of groups as to be almost meaningless. It encompasses everyone from the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center to peacefully elected legislators in Kuwait who have voted in favor of women’s suffrage.
Monday, September 8,2008 20:02
Brookings
Between 1991 and 2001, the world of political Islam became significantly more diverse. Today, the term “Islamist”—used to describe a political perspective centrally informed by a set of religious interpretations and commitments—can be applied to such a wide array of groups as to be almost meaningless. It encompasses everyone from the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center to peacefully elected legislators in Kuwait who have voted in favor of women’s suffrage.
Nonetheless, the prominence of Islamist movements—legal and illegal, violent and peaceful—in the ranks of political oppositions across the Arab world makes the necessity of drawing relevant distinctions obvious. The religious discourse of the Islamists is now unavoidably central to Arab politics. Conventional policy discussions label Islamists either “moderate” or “radical,” generally categorizing them according to two rather loose and unhelpful criteria. The first is violence: Radicals use it and moderates do not. This begs the question of how to classify groups that do not themselves engage in violence but who condone, justify, or even actively support the violence of others. A second, only somewhat more restrictive criterion is whether the groups or individuals in question accept the rules of the democratic electoral game. Popular sovereignty is no small concession for traditional Islamists, many of whom reject democratically elected governments as usurpers of God’s sovereignty. Yet commitment to the procedural rules of democratic elections is not the same as commitment to democratic politics or governance.

 


Posted in Islamic Movements  
Add Comment Send to Friend Print
Related Articles
Engaging the Middle East
POMED Notes: Islamist Parties and Democracy
Habib: Engaging Copts is Necessary to Prevent Sectarian Conflicts
EVENT on "Islamist Parties and Democracy"
The Muslim Brotherhood is Pro-Dialogue, Engagement of Women and Copts : Habib
Carter Calls for Engaging Hamas
Engaging The Muslim Brotherhood
Engaging Hamas
Moroccan Authorities Detain 5 Leaders of 2 Islamic Parties
Islamist Pragmatists Ripe for Engagement?
Jordan Vote Reflects Islamic Parties’ Slide
U.S. engages Muslim Brotherhood despite Rice
Engaging Hamas and Hezbollah
Letters: Engaging the Muslim Brotherhood
Engaged to Hamas
To Engage or Not to Engage?
Muslim Brotherhood, Contemporary Islamic Parties
Arabs should not exclude Islamist parties - Albright
The Causes of the Irresistible Progression of Islamist Parties in the Arab-Muslim World
We Must Engage With Moderate Muslims
Political Islam: Ready for Engagement?
Engaging Moderate Muslims—Really?
Engagement or Quarantine: How to Deal with the Islamist Advance
View from Dubai: Why the West must engage Islamists
US Considering Engaging Muslim Brothers?
Engaging Political Islam to Promote Democracy