The Problem of Democracy: America, the Middle East, and the Rise and Fall of an Idea

by Shadi Hamid

What happens when democracy produces "bad" outcomes? Is democracy good because of its outcomes or despite them? This "democratic dilemma" is one of the most persistent, vexing problems for America abroad, particularly in the Middle East—we want democracy in theory but not necessarily in practice.

When Islamist parties rise to power through free elections, the United States has too often been ambivalent or opposed, preferring instead pliable dictators. With this legacy of democratic disrespect in mind, and drawing on new interviews with top American officials, Shadi Hamid explores universal questions of morality, power, and hypocrisy. Why has the United States failed so completely to live up to its own stated ideals in the Arab world? And is it possible for it to change?

In The Problem of Democracy , Hamid offers an ambitious reimagining of this ongoing debate and argues for "democratic minimalism" as a path to resolving democratic dilemmas in the Middle East and beyond. In the seemingly eternal tension between democracy and liberalism, recognized by the ancient Greeks and the American founders alike, it may be time to prioritize one over the other, rather than acting as if the two are intertwined when increasingly they are not.

Genres: Politics, History, Middle East, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Islam

312 pages, Hardcover

Published October 15, 2022

About the author

Shadi Hamid is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of the Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World, which was shortlisted for the 2017 Lionel Gelber Prize. He is a contributing editor at The Atlantic. His previous book Temptations of Power: Islamists and Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East was named a Foreign Affairs Best Book of 2014.

Reviews

[E.T. · Rating 2 out of 5]

What is the book's premise ?
The book is an argument for what the author calls for "m̶i̶n̶i̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶d̶e̶m̶o̶c̶r̶a̶c̶y̶ " - open religious majoritarianism in Muslim-majority countries. Building on his argument in Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam Is Reshaping the World, he says that Muslim-majority societies are incapable of being liberal and secular and so USA must support democracies in which Islamists can win and rule.
Wonder if the author has heard of the term "constitution" !!!
----------------------------------------
Is the premise original ?
No. Pakistan was created on the basis of the same argument by partitioning India. The author argues that Islamism can be soft and there are diverse interpretations of religious laws. The same arguments were used by Jinnah & co of the Muslim League to partition India. Refer Creating a New Medina: State Power, Islam, and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India and Dr.Ambedkar's Pakistan Or Partition Of India
(Divided) India had approx 10% Muslim population at that time, which is up to approx 20% now. Compared to Pakistan which has 2% Hindus. Divided Bengal - Indian Bengal has 30% Muslims, while Bangladesh has 10% Hindus despite being mirror images in demography at the time of partition. Clearly, something is wrong with illiberal and religious republics.
----------------------------------------
What is the major logical flaw in the premise ?
The author is asking for the right of people to choose religious majoritarianism in the name of freedom. While ironically, the same freedom is denied to individuals who may differ in their beliefs. How does an individual not wearing hijab affect religious Muslims ? How does an individual commiting blasphemy/apostasy do the same ? How does an individual eating in the fasting month affect your religious beliefs ? How does an individual who has different sexual orientation affect anyone else ? Why must you treat women as unequal - almost sub-human ?
And if according to him, such societies are already homogeneous and these laws are acceptable to all of the society. I counter - if that is so what is the problem in allowing Muslims who differ, the choice to behave and speak as they should. If the society is indeed homogeneous and everyone wishes to follow certain laws voluntarily, why force it on them ? Why disallow even one Muslim who disagrees his right to speech , belief and action as long as his actions dont harm you (offense is not harm).
A religious Muslim is free to follow his religion in his home, his religious places, in public places. Why then do they want to impose their religion thru the state on everyone including non-Muslims ?
In such communities, all the good things of life - art, poetry, cinema, books, science, social life - even sports wither and die. The total no. of books translated into Arabic from the world are less than those translated into Spanish in one year.
Liberty is an axiomatic value which cannot be interchanged with a religion.
----------------------------------------
Is the author consistent ?
On the "Carvaka" podcast, host Kushal Mehra asked him whether he would be comfortable with India turning into a Hindu Rashtra (civilisation/religious state) ? The author was uncomfortable and started talking about liberalism and equality etc
Another defender of the faith ? The supreme irony of it all is that no talk of these safeguards features in the book.
----------------------------------------
Is the book "Islamophobic" ?
Lets take the author's argument - that few if any Muslims are secularists and liberals by Western standards and that a Muslim-majority country cannot have a liberal and secular democracy because the overwhelming majority doesnt wish it. This would be Islamophobic if a non-Muslim said it. and severely chastised.
Further, what does this say about integration of Muslims in the Western society ? What about immigration policies of the West ? Do they need to factor this in ?
----------------------------------------
Why does USA promote authoritarian rule according to the author ?
The author says that USA is committed to liberal democracy and feels that authoritarian rulers may be friendly to it. Read that again. Liberal democracies may go against USA but yet the USA is Ok with them in the Middle East. It resorts to authoritarian rule not because of Israel but because a religious democracy with the money-power of oil will be even more intolerant and violent than the Saudis & co which are being tolerated today.
On that note, the crucial role of easy money of oil has not been discussed. Look comparatively liberal Dubai has become after running out of oil. Or tourist destinations like Maldives/Turkey are.
----------------------------------------
Closing comments - The book is repetitive and tedious at times, especially since I have read his earlier book "Islamic Exceptionalism". Also, as usual, very few Muslims are able to see beyond their paradigms and the author was no exception.
I wish people like Ed Hussain, Maajid Nawaz , our own Mohd Arif Khan gain larger followings and we move towards plural, tolerant societies with liberal, secular states.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good to Hear a Middle East Point of View

No solutions in this book but shows a point of view from the Middle East on Democracy and American influence on other nations to support it. The Arab Spring happened about 10 years ago and Middle Eastern countries are struggling with democracy. Many reasserted authoritarian governments without much opposition from the United States. The book highlights the frustration among people who expected American support only to face indifference when authoritarian regimes took over. People died and were imprisoned and faced no support from the USA so what does the United States really want?

[Matt Nyman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree totally with other reviews that this book should be two books. One proposing a new version of American foreign policy - democratic minimalism. And the second a detailed history of American foreign policy in the Middle East from 1990-2020. Shadi Hamid clearly knows plenty about both, and often I felt in WAY over my head, reading this book.

I really don't buy democratic minimalism as a theory. The idea that you can separate out the procedure of democracy from the substance of liberalism is for me an idea that is FAR too technical and logical, and without a fundamental idea of what humans are like. And the idea that authoritarians can be elected, and it's fine, goes against nearly all of lived human experience. These are no doubt oversimplifications of Hamid's arguments, perhaps because I do not fully understand.

I do agree fundamentally with Hamid's VERY dark criticisms of American foreign policy over the past 30 years in the middle east. But it would be ridiculous to pretend that it has been a success, given the current state of affairs, and it really isn't any kind of intellectual advance to point this out. Though Hamid does know his stuff and he had detailed information in here.

For me, the interesting part about Hamid is how he seems to believe that American foreign policy is somehow unique or different from other self-interested actors. I could not disagree more. That Americans run around with superiority complexes is HARDLY the only example of this in the world. I'd argue this idea is entirely universal. This belief in Americans unique awfulness and failure skews his analysis so much that I think it jeopardizes his arguments.

Similarly, his focus on the middle east and its parade of failed democratic initiatives over the past 30 years, is a really belabored way of getting to democratic minimalism because it mostly argues directly against his thesis. The very fact that democracy has failed in the middle east, which Hamid details, is the very reason his theory would NOT work. To focus on just the process of democracy, in the context of middle east local politics, seems very naive. Hamid repeatedly seems to acknowledge this, to his credit, with the idea that democratic minimalism really has to be democratic minimalism plus, with other liberal ideas that either have been accepted in the middle east or would need to be accepted in the middle east, for the theory to work.

Hamid is CLEARLY a deep thinker, well beyond anything I'm capable of understanding. And no doubt I missed much of his point here. But for me, I don't see a lot of realism or humanity in these ideas that you can somehow separate out procedural democracy from the rest of modern development, for purposes of American diplomacy and foreign policy. The idea is just too ivory tower for me, and I myself am an ivory tower person often.

This book is very worth reading for the unique perspective Hamid brings. He's pretty unique in the universe of modern thinkers. I just don't think this this particular idea is very practical or useful in the end, except as an intellectual exercise.

[Tim Chesterton · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first thing to say about this book is that it’s important to read the subtitle and take it seriously. This is not a book about democracy in general; it’s about the Middle East, the rise and fall of democracy in that region, and how the United States (despite its pro-democracy rhetoric) has contributed to the failure of the democratic ideal. For those familiar with Shadi Hamid’s thought, this is an area of deep interest to him; a Muslim born in the USA of Egyptian parents, he has lived in the Middle East and written extensively about it. He is a senior fellow of the Brookings Institute, research professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Seminary, and a contributing writer at ‘The Atlantic’.

Broadly speaking, in this book Hamid is making two points.

First, in western thought ‘democracy’ and ‘liberalism’ tend to go together (by ‘liberalism’ Hamid doesn’t mean left-wing politics; he means the western tradition of individual human rights, freedom of choice etc.). In the west, liberalism arrived first; countries were gradually transformed (and secularised) by the philosophy of liberalism, and then, at a later date, they embraced democracy, usually in incremental steps (universal adult suffrage, for example, was a long time coming). Because of this history, secular westerners tend to assume that if middle eastern countries embrace democracy they will/should also embrace liberalism.

Hamid argues that this is unlikely to happen. The Middle East is a region shaped by Islam, and for the most part, this has made it more conservative. Most Muslims want religion to play some part in politics (which is anathema to western liberalism), and they are more comfortable than secular westerners with a certain level of legislative support for cultural and social conservatism. If they are given a democratic choice, this is what they usually vote for. Hence the ‘problem of democracy’; secular westerners applaud the arrival of free elections in Middle Eastern countries, and are then appalled when those free elections don’t produce the results expected by secular westerners.

In response to this, Hamid’s proposal is for what he refers to as ‘democratic minimalism’—in other words, we should accept the fact that democracy and liberalism are not necessarily connected to each other. Democracy requires the freedom to choose your government (and to change your mind a few years later), and necessarily also freedom of speech and association so that opposition can compete on a level playing field. However, it does not necessarily require the full embrace of the entire western liberal agenda. That may happen in time, and it may not. Whether or not it does, it’s still good for people to be able to choose their own government, even if that government goes on to disappoint (as western governments often do).

Second, Hamid points out that the United States, despite its profession of faith in democracy, has often opposed democracy around the world. As far as I can tell, Hamid believes there are two reasons for this. Firstly, as already mentioned, America is ideologically committed to liberalism, and is therefore opposed to the defeat of liberalism at the ballot box. Secondly, popular opinion in the Arab countries of the Middle East is overwhelmingly anti-Israel. In this instance, authoritarian leaders in the Middle East are largely out of step with their own populations; they know how important it is for them to receive American aid, and they know that U.S. foreign policy is staunchly pro-Israel.

And this is the problem. Democratic elections in the Middle East, if they are truly free and representative, will reflect the opinion of the population in general, which is pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist. If political parties holding these opinions form majority governments, policies will be changed. And America does not want to see this happen. For this reason, it did nothing to oppose (for instance) the military coup that brought down the Islamist Morsi government in Egypt in 2013 (older readers will remember a similar American foreign policy decades ago in central and south America, when the enemy was not Islamism but socialism).

These are Hamid’s main points, and he backs them up by telling the stories of failed democratic experiments in recent years in Egypt, Jordan, and Algeria. He also tells the story of Islamism (with particular reference to the Islamic Brotherhood, started by Hassan al-Banna), how it has advanced its program, and what Islamist parties have actually done with power when it was in their grasp (briefly, in most cases).

This is a compelling book, and I learned a lot from reading it. In closing, I have two small points to make.

First, I appreciate that Shadi Hamid is an American writing about the relationship between the USA and the Middle East. However, the current Israeli attack on Gaza (which at the time of writing has killed close to 60,000 people, and probably many more) demonstrates that the whole world is involved, not just the USA (it’s important to remember that in the early years of the twentieth century the major colonial powers in the Middle East were Britain and France, not the USA). I think this excellent book would have been even better if Hamid had included some reference to the involvement of other countries, and in particular their positions with regard to Israel and Palestine.

Second, because I listen to the podcast ‘Zealots at the Gate’ (hosted by Shadi Hamid and Matthew Kaemingk), I know that Hamid has also reflected on the most recent US election in the light of his belief that democracy is still a good thing even if it produces what we see as undesirable results. Given Donald Trump’s staunch support for the Netanyahu government in Israel and its mass killings in Gaza, and also his prolonged attack on the rules-based order which hs made freedom and stability possible around the world for so many years, I would submit that the case for accepting and respecting the results of an election seems a lot more murky now than it did when this book was written. In the end, I still think Hamid makes a good argument for it, but I’d be interested to hear whether his thought has changed at all in the light of the last seven months.

Four stars out of five.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book to be a bit odd. It had interesting parts, but the argument was unconvincing, and it also had a good amount of fluff that should have been edited out.

Here's the argument: USFP in the Middle East for the last half century or so has made a bargain with autocrats who ostensibly provide stability. These figures (Mubarak, the Saudis, Sissi, the Jordanian monarchy, etc) also keep Islamism at bay. If the region became more democratic, it would probably become more Islamist as well in a political sense. The dilemma here for the US is that such a trend for democratization might lead these societies to become less liberal (less open to women's rights, Western culture, religious minorities, free speech, etc) and more anti-American (particularly regarding Israel). So the US has stuck with these autocrats as the devils they know; for example, when Sissi launched the coup against Morsi, US criticism was muted and they didn't cut off aid.

Hamid then argues that the US should nonetheless embrace "democratic minimalism" in the Middle East. It should condition aid on efforts by our allies to open the political system to competition, even if that means empowering Islamist parties. The minimalism part here means a focus on the mechanics of democracy and the rule of law rather than a deeper liberalism, which might actually be retarded by the rise of Islamism. He argues that Islamists are actually more cautious and less radical than they seem to be and wouldn't suddenly become religious totalitarians. Hamid argues that US support for dictators in the ME is not just unethical but strategically myopic, as these dictators often radicalize opposition groups with heavy-handed repression while acting irresponsibly in the region as a whole.

I half agree with Hamid's argument. I am way less trusting of Islamists' intentions than he is, and I would hesitate to throw women and many other groups under the bus, as might happen if Islamists take over. Obviously support for dictators is a problem in USFP in the ME, but in cases like Saudi Arabia any successor govt is likely to be even more radical and anti-US. Hamid seems to want the US to create problems for itself by pushing autocratic allies to reform and bring in new actors who will push against US interests, even as the US tries to shift focus to other strategic theaters. This makes no sense as a matter of strategy; you don't create problems for yourself in the rearguard as you are trying to focus elsewhere (China, for example). Furthermore, I tend to think that in most cases liberalism precedes democracy (thinking of Fareed Zakaria's argument here) and that Arab democracies will not succeed until they . In short, I'm not sure Islamist democracy will be all that democratic, and I'm fairly sure it won't be liberal, and I'm 90% sure it will be anti-US, so I don't see a compelling reason to back it.

However, when the political system of an Arab state gets opened up from within, as happened in Egypt and Tunisia in 2011, then the US should support democratic processes there even if they lead to Islamists winning. The key point here is that the US shouldn't make trouble for itself by challenging autocratic allies, but if those allies' systems start to open up, the US should encourage the democratic process. For example, the Egyptian people (at least the ones who protested) made a massive mistake in calling for Morsi's ouster in Egypt before his term was up. They effectively opened the door for the military to swoop in and re-install authoritarianism. The US cannot direct these things from the outside (like most critics of USFP, Hamid exaggerates US power and agency), but it should try to convince allies to see things through once they have started down a democratic path. That's the balance between strategy and ethics that Hamid failed to arrive at in this book.

There were some great discussions in this book about the Muslim Brotherhood, politics in Egypt, Algeria, and elsewhere, and what Islamism means and how it has changed. However, there were also glaring omissions. Hamid argues that the US hasn't really tried to spread democracy consistently in the ME, and he has a point. But he barely discusses two genuine attempts by the US to cultivate democracy in the ME: Iraq and Afghanistan. In both cases, we failed. Iraq devolved into sectarianism and corruption and is now ranked "not free" by Freedom House. It could not overcome tribal and religious conflicts as well as illiberalism in its culture to create something approximating liberal democracy. Afghanistan ended up even worse. It felt like a massive dodge by Hamid to not even talk about these failed experiments, which challenge his arguments that the US has never really tried to support democracy in the Middle East and that Islamists (like the corrupt, Iran-aligned Shia parties in Iraq) can govern fairly and well.

Overall, I am a pessimist about Middle Eastern politics. I think it is too deeply infected by illiberalism, religious extremism, the oppression of women, the obsession with ISrael, and a victim/conspiratorial mentality that inhibits serious moves toward democracy and liberalism. I do not expect all democracies to look the same, and I'd love to be proven wrong. But the track record, frankly, is not good, and US policy in this region cannot be based on gambling over something that hasn't happened yet. Hamid makes a decent case for a shift in USFP, but I'm not convinced. This is especially true when liberal democracy is on the ropes in the US itself!

[Wissam Raji · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book is not worth reading due to its repetitions and lack of depth; a summary would suffice. The author attempts to conceal his ideological religious motives under the guise of being a liberal thinker raised in the US, using this to undermine US efforts in promoting democracy. He attributes the failure of democracy in the Middle East to the US rather than the people of the region. Instead of approaching his thesis from a multidimensional perspective—considering religious, cultural, economic, and political factors—he exclusively blames the US.

The author fails to acknowledge that liberalism and democracy typically reinforce each other in a cycle. However, in the Middle East, this cycle is distorted due to cultural and religious influences. Manipulated forms of fake liberalism are used to gain democracy, which then leads to illiberalism and ultimately theocracy. Consequently, rather than an authoritarian regime driven by self-interest, the region ends up with religious authoritarianism.

Furthermore, labeling the US mission of spreading democracy as "hypocrisy" is ignorant and shows a lack of understanding of US foreign policy history.

[Surfacin9 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book, and totally disagree with the author about pushing for democracy in the Middle East. And when I say “enjoyed” I don’t mean I was delighted by the ideas, but rather it kept my mind engaged and on the offensive about what he offered as US policy solutions.

I rate this book 4/5 for the good arguments, historical background, and the personal experience that the author shared while in the Middle East. The “-1” is for not being able to stay objective. Hamid was basically pushing for the Brotherhood agenda. Maybe not in an obvious way, but more like, “Hey, we should give them a chance to win, and see!”

Democracy doesn’t work in a society that doesn’t understand what democracy means. Most people here think democracy means the majority rules, and the minority are the “losers” who should just accept whatever policy the majority dictates. The concept of respecting minority rights is nonexistent. As a woman living here in the Middle East, at this point in time I do not wish for democracy. I prefer the benevolent dictator, thank you very much. The majority of people would support implementing strict Islamic governance. I’m not entirely sure they even want to see those policies come to fruition, they just have this idea that “the Quran is our constitution,” and thus it solves all of our problems; moral and civic. They have no other concepts of where humans could possibly derive moral principles. I don’t blame them. Most of them genuinely believe there were no civilizations in history before Islam; everything pre-Islamic was “jahiliyyah”, when humanity lived in barbarism and ignorance.

I grew up in schools that taught us what to think, not how to think. We memorized information and spat it out on the test paper at the end of each school year. We were not encouraged to think “outside the box.” Most of my generation can’t read English fluently, and even if they did, they’re not curious enough to see what’s out there in the world. Yes, we all have internet on our phones, but people mainly use them to follow social influencers on TikTok. They’re happy to stay under the veil of ignorance. Should a vote count when it’s only influenced by a local mullah or the tribe’s patriarch? Or even worse, bought by a wealthy businessman?

Hamid doesn’t have a problem with the majority (the Islamic Brotherhood) ruling the region. And it’s easy for him to hold this opinion. He has no personal stake in the matter. He graduated from elite western university, and publishes his columns in liberal news outlets that have ironically come to “respect” and “value” Islamic ideologies. But had he been born into any of the minority groups living in the Middle East, he would have a different opinion entirely.

[Abby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't read non-fiction very often but this book sounded intriguing. It's written in are academic style so I wouldn't recommend it to a casual reader unless you have an interest in foreign policy and political science. I thought the author did a good job of clearly stating his beliefs and therefore any potential biases in his writing. I do agree with the other reviews that this book felt a little disjointed and could've been split up.

** I received a free copy of this book via a Goodreads Giveaway **

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this could’ve just been a series of articles. There was new information that I learned, but the argument Dr. Hamid lays out doesn’t contain any more substance than what Dr. Hamid discusses on his podcast.

[Mirad · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book offers a unique perspective on Islamists, though it would have benefited from dedicating more space—at least a full chapter—to Turkey’s Islamist movement. Still, it’s an insightful read and definitely worth picking up.

[Murtaza · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read my review: https://mazmhussain.substack.com/p/th...

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

B - Compelling, but could have been (and should have been) an Atlantic article.

[Sarthak · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is almost unreadable. Complete stream of consciousness without any sort of logical structure or connections between paragraphs.

[Ravi Warrier · Rating 2 out of 5]

My low rating of the book squarely depends on my ignorance of global politics and history. I learned a lot from the book about democracy as a concept, but I didn't enjoy it.