Governance and Government in the Modern Muslim World — Notes (Last-Minute Review)

Three Basic Ways Governments Invoke Islam

States commonly invoke Islam in three ways: When Muslims call upon religion
- 1) Laws reflect religious norms (e.g., family law; some states have religious courts; some base all or part of legislation on Sharia; bodies like Iran’s Council of Guardians review laws for conformity). Governments often support and control training of ulama.
- 2) Leadership that claims relationship to divinity or to religious genealogy (e.g., Jordanian and Moroccan monarchies tracing back to the Prophet’s clan; Sunni vs Shia patterns; Ayatollah Khomeini as a religiously credentialed leader who rules through a jurist framework; Saudi Arabia as defender of the Holy Places).
- 3) Solidarity with the Muslim community: governments present themselves as representatives of the community of believers; early Islamic leaders used titles like “commander of the faithful.” In the modern era leaders speak for national Muslim communities (e.g., Moroccan, Malay, Pakistani, Indonesian Muslims) or subsets thereof; Islamist movements claim to represent a broader or purer Muslim community (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood).
No single pattern: national history and politics better explain the religion–politics relationship than any blanket claim about Islam itself.
Governments use religion to bolster legitimacy, but also face opposition from religious perspectives when overreaching.

Variation in National Response

Muslim states vary from rigid Sharia application to broad, inspiring references for positive legislation; from unifying religion with the state to accommodation of pluralism.
Three partially explanatory factors for variation:
- 1) Early history of Islam in the country and how conversion occurred.
- 2) Impact of imperialism and colonialism.
- 3) Timing of independence.
Examples and distinctions:
- Saudi Arabia: highly religious identity tied to the Wahhabi movement and the Hajj/Ummah; relatively closed to reform until more recent times.
- Indonesia: pluralistic, diverse Islam shaped by geography and Dutch colonial rule; more plural and tolerant in practice; gradual Islamization with liberalization.
- Turkey: distinct case due to secular reforms under Atatürk, then gradual Islamist participation and democratic openings (AKP era beginning around 2002).
- Iran: the 1979 revolution fused religion with constitution; unique in combining Islamic law with formal institutions intended to ensure conformity to Sharia.
- Central Asian republics: varied experiences with Soviet-era suppression, later religious revival with anti-imperial overtones.
Turkey is a case apart; Iran and Saudi Arabia are not easily compared with neighboring states.
The pattern across states: nationalism and Islam are linked differently across contexts; no single model of governance fits all Muslim-majority countries.

Religious leadership and Institutions

Religious legitimacy relies on multiple centers of authority: ulama, Sufi orders, and Islamists.
Ulama (traditional scholars): historically central to interpreting Sharia; in Sunni contexts there is no formal international hierarchy, making national governments easier to co-opt. In Shia contexts (e.g., Iran), clerical hierarchies can be more autonomous and influential, as seen in the 1979 revolution.
State-supplied support for religious institutions: control of waqf (endowments) and mosques, as well as education, has reduced the independence of ulama in many Muslim-majority states.
Sufis: historically important missionaries and popular religious networks; often suppressed during modern state-building but later revived in some places; can be a stabilizing force due to broad lay networks.
Islamists: modern, voluntary associations (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood) that claim to represent the community and mobilize political action; they challenge both ulama and Sufi orders by redefining the ‘ Muslim community’ as those who join modern associations and pursue political action.

Islamists and Political Islam

Islamists emerged as a challenge to traditional authority structures (ulama and Sufi orders) and to state-defined religious authority. They emphasize that Islam is the basis for politics and social life, and they advocate for governance informed by Sharia.
The Brotherhood model: a multisector, reformist, politically engaged movement; uses civil society, education, and social services to build support while pursuing political influence.
Government responses to Islamists vary widely:
- Repression (often with human-rights concerns) in cases of violent extremism or perceived threat to state authority.
- Concessions to non-violent Islamist demands (e.g., dress codes, religious courts, family law reforms) to undercut radical currents.
- Toleration of Islamist groups in civil society; some Islamist parties participate in elections and governance (e.g., Turkey, Indonesia).
Democratic inclusion vs. authoritarian caution: Islamist groups can contribute to civil society (education, literacy, volunteerism), but governments worry about losing control if Islamists win elections. Arab Spring-era shifts highlighted both the potential for democratization and the risk of new forms of authoritarianism.
Case highlights:
- Egypt: Nasir outlawed the Brotherhood; Sadat tolerated but did not legalize; 2011 legalization for some activities but not direct political party status; later political developments uncertain in the text.
- Turkey: Kemalists blocked Islamist parties for decades; Erdoğan’s 2002 victory integrated Islamists into a broad conservative coalition and strengthened Turkish democracy overall.
- Indonesia: Sukarno resisted Islamist challenges; Suharto allowed cultural revival; Islamists gained representation within the system under Pancasila; liberalization accompanied Islamization.
- Algeria/Tunisia/Morocco: Islamist parties faced harsh crackdowns or cautious accommodation; post-Arab Spring dynamics opened space for elections in some cases (e.g., Tunisia).

The Role of Sharia and Ongoing Debates

Sharia is contested and evolving; discussion about how to interpret and apply it in the 21st century is ongoing across the Muslim world.
Reasons for ongoing Sharia debates:
- Youthful and often weak post-colonial states seek fixed doctrines; rulers rely on ulama for legitimacy.
- Islamist movements push for “the Sharia” as a guaranteed anchor for politics, creating tension with more flexible interpretations.
- Attempts to reform Sharia through ijtihad (interpretation) face resistance; many scholars have faced exile or suppression when advocating modern reinterpretations.
Examples of divergent interpretations: Wahhabi vs Turkish/Indonesian conceptions of Sharia; Atatürk’s abolition of Sharia in Turkey shows how state modernization can redefine religious concepts, even if public belief in Sharia persists.
The Saudi-Ulama relationship illustrates ongoing tensions: state-supported ulama may debate Sharia but can conflict with the monarchy on specific interpretations and modern reforms.

Leadership, State, and Community

Governments need the support of the Muslim community to implement laws; legitimacy requires religious legitimacy plus political efficacy.
The Muslim community is not monolithic: ulama, Sufi orders, Islamist associations, and local holy men all claim to speak for believers, sometimes within and sometimes against the state.
The result is a continual balancing act: states co-opt, suppress, or accommodate religious actors to maintain legitimacy and social order.

Conclusion

Muslim governance varies significantly by history and geography; no single interpretation of Islam explains political structures.
Islam is used by states to strengthen identity and justify policy choices, while opposition groups also mobilize religious legitimacy.
Islamists have achieved power in a few states (e.g., Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran) at different times, but most states remain authoritarian or semi-authoritarian in practice.
Politics shapes religion more decisively than religion shapes politics in practice; states craft institutions and interpretations to fit national needs.

Summary

All governments rely on religion to varying degrees; Muslim-majority states differ in how they invoke religious law, leadership, and community support.
Islamist organizations challenge official religious hierarchies and push for a more politicized Islam, with responses ranging from repression to accommodation and inclusion in political life.
There is no single pattern of governance across Muslim-majority states; history, colonialism, and the timing of independence shape each country’s approach.
Islam as a belief system cannot fully account for governance; national history and political choices determine how religion is integrated into the state.

Discussion points

To what extent are Muslim-majority states distinct from other countries in how they use religion for political purposes?
Why is the Sharia so central in debates about an Islamic state?
How should governments deal with Islamist organizations that claim to be the “true Muslims” and seek an “Islamic state”?
Why have some countries (e.g., Turkey, Indonesia) moved toward democracy while others resist democratization despite Islamist movements?
Do Western views of Islam as an obstacle to democracy hold up against the patterns described here?

Governance and Government in the Modern Muslim World — Notes (Last-Minute Review)

Three Basic Ways Governments Invoke Islam

Variation in National Response

Religious leadership and Institutions

Islamists and Political Islam

The Role of Sharia and Ongoing Debates

Leadership, State, and Community

Conclusion

Summary

Discussion points

Further reading