From the Indiana Democracy Consortium

Working Group
Islam and Politics

Overview

The Working Group on Islam and Politics is guided by a common interest in broadening our general understanding of the inherent complexities of political life in Muslim societies. As a subset of the IDC, the Islam and Politics group is committed to enhancing cross-disciplinary research with clear policy relevance. To this end, the group’s core faculty members reflect the intellectual diversity of this endeavor: Nazif Shahrani (Anthropology, Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and Central Eurasian Studies), Abdulkader Sinno (Political Science and Near Eastern Languages and Cultures), and Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi (Law). During the 2008-09 academic year the working group will also benefit from the participation of visiting professor Saad Ibrahim.

These faculty members have initiated a project that will explore how the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan impacts our understanding of state and nation-building efforts. U.S. military and political operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified, in part, by the belief that stable democratic governments in both states would yield moderate polities. In retrospect, it is quite clear that the process of nation and state-building is decidedly more complex than U.S. policymakers initially expected. More than being a simple question of putting the ‘proper’ institutions into place, the process requires a vastly more nuanced view of the multiple dynamics that structure well-functioning societies, particularly when such societies are already characterized by a number of other social divisions.

Alarmingly, the academic community nationwide was largely incapable of providing a sound theoretical framework from which to appropriately gauge whether intervention could lead to stable governance in Iraq and Afghanistan. This dilemma stemmed from two key sources. First, scholars have traditionally relied on transition-based theories of democratic change that fail to capture the myriad factors that can impair political liberalization. Perhaps more damningly, such theories automatically assume that open polities in the tradition of advanced industrial democracies are immediately preferable to less open, but more culturally grounded, political institutions that can deliver effective governance. Second, academics and practitioners (such as government officials, NGO workers, development consultants, etc.) consistently fail to communicate with one another in a way that allows for mutual learning. Many practitioners adhere to tried and true models that, while generally ineffective and inefficient, can yield predictable outcomes. At the same time, scholars persistently fail to recognize the myriad benefits derived from practitioners’ on-the-ground experiences.

Future Plans

In recognition of these dilemmas, and with a commitment to more fully understanding what lessons are to be gleaned from intervention-based state and nation-building efforts, the IDC will convene an inter-disciplinary panel session in November of 2009. This panel will be modeled on previous IDC colloquia sessions that have successfully brought together practitioners and academics. To this end, the conference will host a mix of approximately 15 scholars and practitioners with expertise on both Iraq and Afghanistan. Panels and subsequent volume chapters will deal with the following areas:

1. Constitutional Design and Rule of Law: The process of constitutional design is always contentious. To the extent that constitutions frame expectations of government power and establish the rules under which collective governance occurs, constitution-making requires a large degree of sober reflection. The process of constitution building in both Iraq and Afghanistan was greatly influenced by outside actors. This panel asks whether the extant constitutions in both countries are a fair reflection of the social institutions that shape daily political and economic interactions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are they suitable to these countries’ situations, needs and polities? Do they provide safeguards against transgressions on the rule of law? Has the judiciary achieved enough independence and influence to uphold the rule of law? How should the rule of law be strengthened in each country? What is the role of religious legal traditions?
2. Electoral System Design: Electoral systems are, almost by definition, the critical element of procedural democracy. Even minor changes in electoral formulae and district magnitudes can have tremendous implications for the quality and type of legislative representation. Needless to say, plural societies and transitioning states are doubly pressed to identify electoral systems that can achieve the types of governments that most accurately reflect citizen preference. In Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, constitutional provisions guarantee a certain number of legislative seats for women. At the same time, however, electoral system design can be used to alienate particular facets of society or to wholly disenfranchise specific communal groups. This panel will address electoral design in Iraq and Afghanistan by asking how electoral systems have been structured in each country and why. Are they beneficial or should they be modified to achieve better governance and representation? If so, is this possible or desirable? What has been the role of political parties? Can the role of political parties be made more constructive?
3. Economic Reconstruction vs. Economic Development: A key component of long-term democracy promotion must be addressing the fundamental economic disjunctures wrought by both U.S. military intervention and prior regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan that either privileged a particular urbanized elite or generated disincentives for economic growth owing to widespread civil conflict. In this regard, it is critical to differentiate between economic development (where concerted effort is given to coordinate and expand a broad array of economic activities amongst a population) and economic reconstruction (which necessitates a provision of public goods needed for the basic economic survival that will allow future growth to take place). There is, unfortunately, a tendency to view both activities with a common lens. This panel will address this dilemma by asking how a balanced economy can develop in these two transitioning states. How can economic growth be encouraged? How can aid be managed to spur economic growth and effective reconstruction?
4. Conflict Resolution: As is the case in many plural societies, different communal groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan must address both intra- and inter-group conflicts. When one also factors in the fundamental issues of human security that have been exacerbated by recent histories of mistrust and violence, it becomes clear that institutions for effective conflict resolution must be strengthened. How can conflict be institutionalized and managed in a way that reduces damage to the population and economy and lead to Western disengagement? How can U.S. disengagement take place without setting in motion processes that may lead to an open-ended conflict or the establishment of oppressive regimes? Are counterinsurgency practices consistent with state building? Are the goals of the United States and the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan consistent? How does the U.S. presence affect prospects for conflict resolution?
5. Policy Recommendations for Iraq and Afghanistan: This plenary session weaves together policy recommendations from the four panels in a way that accounts for the contradictions that may arise and the tradeoffs that have to be made.

Ultimately, these panel sessions reflect an effort to find a space of mutual discourse on two countries that, aside from sharing the common factor of US intervention, are quite distinct. Iraq is an emergent petrol-state with a developed modern sector, while Afghanistan might be characterized as a blend of different societies and cultures where the modern bureaucratic state has never taken hold. That said, this can provide a powerful ‘natural experiment’ since the two countries’ immense societal and political differences allow us to more fully appreciate and assess where intervention has helped or hindered efforts at building functioning states.