INTRODUCTION

A recurrent question about Islam and civil society is whether the democratic ideals of civil society can be generalized to the Muslim world. Is it, some ask, that religions and their exclusive claims are inimical to democratic processes? Others wonder if the dream of Western societies has not become the only dream of Muslim societies because they are heir to an Islamic culture whose core values were not autonomy and self-determination. Discounting the implicit “clash of civilizations” premise or the orientalist stereotyping of Muslim exceptionalism, the question of Islam and democracy merits serious consideration.

In this chapter I will explore Islam, democracy, and notions of an Islamic state as they evolve in the Malaysian context, especially in terms of subsequent recourse to the bastion of democracy, the Constitution. Whether the Islamic state is coherent or cohesive with the democracy has become an important consideration after Prime Minister Mahathir's declaration in September 2001 that Malaysia is an Islamic state. This chapter also explores constitutions that negotiate Islam and democracy elsewhere in the Middle East.

There are many definitions of what constitutes civil society. I will use the broadest notion of the concept. The first is that in the most general sense, the term “civil society” refers to an autonomous, self-organized public and multiple forms of civic initiative which are enabled largely by democratic space guaranteed by a constitution. The other defining concept is that civil society constitutes the range of actors from individuals, the family, the state, business corporations, and associational groupings of all sorts who influence the formation and implementation of public policy, as well as groups that have no concern whatsoever for the public domain. The foundational axiom I will use is that inherent in a civil society is the fight for greater access to justice, rights, and entitlements, to defend democracy and human rights and to respond to basic issues of human welfare. The assumptions that ensue from these definitions, and which ground perspectives and analyses in this chapter, are encapsulated best by Robert Hefner (2000) in his book Civil Islam: Muslims and Democratization in Indonesia. Hefner defines civil Islam as the antithesis of regimist Islam, and that the Islam of a civil society is itself premised on a “civilized and self-limiting state” which “must open itself to public participation” at the same time that independent courts and watchdog agencies must be ready to intervene.