The political and economic power of Muslim Arab countries has been continuously growing for many decades or so; however, the question of how to deal and relate with Islamist movements who reject violence, adhere to democracy, and outperform their opponents has become a central concern of the Muslim Arab countries. There is a need to clarify some policies concerning Islamist movements and the present lack of policies on participating with moderate Islamists leads to deeper problems.
This political-economic problem is seen by the author as one that might create violence in domestic politics in Muslim Arab countries and this major problem will be discussed in this paper. Introduction The Muslim democrats consists of organized political parties and Islamist movements that have either rejected radicalism and violence or restricted the application to what they believe to be efforts to pursue national liberation; or have developed from being politically focused and passive on encouraging and uplifting personal religiosity into being subversive and political activists.
Many members of these movements were former exiles but have returned to their countries after previous confrontations with present regimes. In some cases, Islamist movements and Muslim democrats organizations combine these different experiences and backgrounds, having previously been supporters and advocates of political violence. The Muslim Democrats: A Major Political Economic Problem All Muslim democrats are national Islamists in a sense that their political focus is on their national state, where they continuously seek democratic ways to exercise their political power (Partner, 1960). However, there are two exceptions to these democrats.
These are Hizbollah and Hamas. These two are more thought of as Islamist liberation movement in a sense that the main stimulus for their establishment has been the confrontation with an existing power. The Hizbollah and Hamas parties have also not absolutely and totally avoided the use of violence in Palestine’s and Lebanon’s domestic politics. However, they can still be considered as Muslim democrats because they also have accepted the rules and policies of democratic contestation on the national settings and are usually not consequentially more inclined and geared to violence instead of other political actors they are competing with.
The long and exhausting journey of the Egypt’s Muslim Brothers or Muslim Brotherhood illustrates and perfectly displays the dwindling path observed and practiced by Muslim democrats. This is hardly surprising especially that the main organizations in most Muslim Arab countries are either national organizational Muslim Brothers offshoot or were just inspired by it. It essentially started as a social movement committed to social service provision and spiritual regeneration in Egypt in 1928 (Ayubi, 2004).
Also in 1970, upon Nasser’s death, Anwar al Sadat started almost immediately to incite the Muslim Brothers as a counterweight to remaining powerful. However, as the domestic political position of Sadat deteriorated, he began to hold tightly all forms of independent and autonomous political activity. Conclusion Basically, the existence of political parties in Muslim Arab countries is one major political-economic problem that might cause violence in these countries.
A related consideration is that although Muslim Democrats reject the concept of interests’ representation and until and unless that feature is developed, a true pluralist democracy will not come out and violence will continuously be created in these Muslim Arab countries. References Partner, P. (1960). A Short Political Guide to the Arab World. New York: Praeger. Ayubi, N. (2004). Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Arab World. London: Routledge.