Is fundamentalism democracy?
What came first: the chicken or the egg? This seemingly simple question has stumped most who come across it. The riddle suggests that the chicken and the egg do not coexist; it's a universal understanding that one had to have subsisted before the other. Many instances in life revolve around the same notion, an initial domino effect that creates something entirely new. When looking at political structures, democracy is understood as the primary concept. Different government systems worldwide apply democratic principles to their policies. However, does simply applying these values make a political structure democratic? Russia is one example of a government structure that is labelled as a democracy, but recent events have shed light on the government system and leaves one to question if it really can be called a democracy. When looking at extreme fundamentalism, there are aspects that do not align with these ethics. The essence of democracy is the freedom of expression and speech. Yet, fundamentalism fails to achieve this indispensable value. Fundamentalismis focused solely on embedding their lifestyle into others, failing to understand and accept that their way of existing is not the only one. Many governments across the globe have adopted fundamentalism as their form of ruling, using the system to push their school of thought onto policies and citizens. However, democracy may influence some aspects of a fundamentalist government, allowing them to identify as such. When adopting the title of a democratic government, it must be ensured that the values are being upheld beyond the name. However, the ultimate truth is that fundamentalism and democracy cannot coexist. Fundamentalism defies many of the essential characteristics of democracy. Fundamentalist government systems have adopted some democratic tendencies through modernization; however, that is simply to uphold an illusion of standards. Democracy is not the value at the heart of fundamentalism; power is.
In order to be considered democratic, there must be an understanding that governments are not above citizens. The purpose of a government is to be one and unite with citizens to create a fair and equal society. According to Yale political scientist Robert Dahl, democracy guarantees citizens fundamental rights, such as political freedom, freedom of speech and expression, and privacy. The purpose of a democracy is to avoid tyranny, provide political equality, and protect vital personal interests and general freedom. When observing fundamentalist government systems, it is apparent that the purpose and definition of democracy are nowhere near being upheld. Fundamentalism is the belief in old and traditional forms of religion or the idea that what is written in a holy book is entirely accurate. The Fundamentalist government's goal is to maintain faith as its core value and ensure that all citizens abide by it. By pressuring religious ideology onto citizens, the government is throwing out the title of a democracy because they are not fulfilling the key pillars of democracy: political freedom and freedom of speech and expression. They are controlling residents by coercing them to follow a particular way of life, claiming that that is the only way. The definitions of the two systems clash; fundamentalism believes only one idea, while democracy attempts to respect all. The two definitions are strikingly opposites, revealing that it would be impossible for fundamentalism to be considered democratic as it lies nowhere near the parameters of democracy.
Fundamentalism also does not uphold the idea that governments are one with their citizens. Fundamentalist perspectives hold themselves above others and assume the superiority of knowledge and truth. Perspectives of variant interpretations are deemed false and rejected. It prohibits citizens from forming their own political and religious viewpoints. It is apparent that a system that not only fails to uphold the democratic standard but poses a threat to it is nowhere near a democracy. It is evident that fundamentalism does not fall under a democracy; however, it seems to fit the title of a totalitarian government system. Totalitarian governments aim to assert total control over their citizens' lives, consisting of a strict central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. This form of government is established in pursuit of a particular goal. Every resource and effort is directed towards the goal regardless of the cost; dissent is branded as evil, and any internal political differences are not permitted. This definition of totalitarianism aligns with fundamentalism and clashes with democracy as both governments' objectives are to assert one belief and way of life for everyone. Both have the desire to impose a strict rule that they deem plausible and limit citizens' rights and freedom in an effort to do so. Totalitarianism is not a democratic government system, and because fundamentalism directly falls into its definition, it further enhances the fact that it too is not a democracy.
Totalitarianism and fundamentalism are a threat to society. Large-scale organized violence becomes permissible and justified by the overriding commitment to the state ideology and pursuit of the state's goal. The danger is that as fundamentalism grows and transfers into the epistemological construction, its beliefs become hardened and self-assertive, leading to extremism. One example is Islamic extremism which has taken the stage in current world affairs. All terrorist attacks at the hands of Islamic extremist groups stem back to religious extremism and fundamentalism. When government systems persist in pushing one ‘true’ belief onto others, it influences citizens into thinking that it is the only way to be good. This negative totalitarian approach results in misinformation warping the minds of citizens, the domino effect that leads to religiously motivated terrorism. The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy the public's sense of security in the places most familiar to them, which aims to abolish the democratic right to safety and security. Tunisia is one of the more recent countries that has adopted a new wave of fundamentalism. As fundamentalist leaders take over, the harmful aftermath becomes apparent. An example of terrorism at the hands of religious extremism is a recent attack in France. A Tunisian man attacked citizens at a church in Nice, France, in what was described as an "Islamist terrorist attack". He murdered three people while chanting "Allah Akbar" (God is greatest) in what was described as "Islamist separatism". Another example of religiously motivated terrorism was in November 2015, when shooters and suicide bombers launched multiple coordinated attacks on the Bataclan concert hall, a major stadium, restaurants, and bars in Paris, leaving 130 people dead and hundreds wounded. The Islamic State group claimed this act of terrorism. One of the attackers was said to have shouted "God is great" in Arabic. One witness heard a gunman blaming President Hollande for intervening in Syria. It was the first clear evidence that Islamists once again targeted Paris. These examples further exemplify the dangerous cause and effect between fundamentalism and terrorism. The tie between totalitarianism, terrorism, and fundamentalism showcases that not only is a fundamentalist government unable to uphold democratic rights, but it is a threat to it. The pain and fear inflicted by terrorist attacks can cause faith in democratic governments to be lost. Citizens can lose hope that their government will protect them, and this vulnerability allows extremist groups to maneuver their tactics into politics. They disguise themselves as extreme voices that promise law and order that no democratic government can achieve. Extremist groups brainwash their audience into favouring more aggressive policies, such as terrorism, making them believe it is necessary for their safety.
It is evident that the definitions of democracy and fundamentalism are not linear or parallel; instead, they are two lines going the complete opposite way. It is clear that countries with a fundamentalist ideology are not looking to be "one" with their citizens. Instead, they are looking for ways to control, rule, and punish people. Although some fundamentalist governments uphold a few democratic standards, their inability to follow through with all the vital components of democracy reflects that they can never achieve it. As well, the domino effect of terrorism that coincides with fundamentalism insinuates that it is also a threat to democracy. The history of religiously motivated terrorism and violence further highlights how fundamentalism is dangerous and poses a threat to global peace. Powerful countries have watched for years as these fundamentalist governments rapidly grow and seize power. Still, it seems as though countries don't believe it is in their best interest to intervene. The failure to hold countries accountable has resulted in numerous terrorist attacks, loss of faith from citizens, and continued expansion of fundamentalism. It appears that the threat to lives and democracy is not enough to enact change. This leaves the question: where the line is drawn and when countries will intervene? Or will they never put an end to the fundamentalist regime?
Sources:
Dahl, Robert. “On Democracy.” Yale University Press, 2000.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism/additional-info#history
https://www.max-security.com/reports/iraqs-rising-shia-fundamentalism/
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/17/weekinreview/tunisia-s-new-wave-is-fundamentalist.html