Radical Islamic Democracy

Can democracy be at once radical and Islamic? In this paper I argue that it can. Myargument is based on a comparison and contrast of certain aspects in the social-politicalthought of two contemporary authors: Axel Honneth who defends a particular conceptionof radical democracy, and Rached al-Ghannouchi who defends a particular conception ofthe Islamic state. I begin with Honneth’s early articulation of his model of radicaldemocracy as reflexive cooperation, which he presents as an alternative that reconcilesArendtian republicanism and Habermasian proceduralism while avoiding theirweaknesses. I also refer to his more mature conception of democracy by way ofhighlighting his understanding of democracy as a process of constituting civil society.This is significant for the purposes of this paper since it forms the most important linkbetween Honneth’s radical democracy and Ghannouchi’s Islamic model of political rule. Ithen introduce Ghannouchi’s theoretical account of the Islamic state with a focus on hisconception of shura (consultation) in order to bring to the fore both the similarities anddissimilarities with Honneth’s theory of democracy. By this point I will have identifiedIslamic resources for a conception of democracy that, like Honneth’s democracy asreflexive cooperation, shares with proceduralism an instrumental view of democraticprocedures, and with republicanism a strong connection between the pre-political sociallevel and politics. Next, I ask whether this conception of radical Islamic democracy cansquare its dual commitment to pluralism and Islamic unity. Again, I draw onGhannouchi’s thought to respond to the challenge, doing so in a way that brings out theagonistic dimension in radical Islamic democracy. I conclude by making explicit howradical Islamic democracy carves out a conceptual space in which proceduralist,republican and agonistic features are combined.