Is the Convergence of Religion and Democracy Possible?

(Final section) The intervention of religion in social relations continues the previous discussions, initially addressing the question of whether the existence of an Islamic banking system is fundamentally to facilitate monetary and financial affairs for Muslims, or whether its goal is similar to that of a free economy, which is to accumulate more wealth and profit. Furthermore, this discussion concludes with a brief examination of the compatibility of religion and democracy. The economy is the basis for monetary and financial exchanges among people - in most democracies, economic relations provide a framework that regulates the financial interactions of individuals within a free economy. Various governments offer different economic systems that are the result of history, production levels, available resources, levels of development and industrialization, and the role of the state in the global economy. Generally, fewer governments base national economic principles on religious beliefs because, no matter how much an internally religious economic system can be imposed and realized, it becomes incompatible with the international economy. Let’s assume that an Islamic banking system has successfully managed to control financial relations between citizens and between citizens and the government based on Islamic resources, eradicating any form of interest and usury. Regardless of how interest is defined (there is no consensus among scholars on this), when interest-free economic relations are attempted to be established with the outside world, the first problem will arise. The philosophy of Islamic transactions is initially very appealing to Western societies because it advertises the elimination of bank interest. However, in practice, interest-free banking operations are nearly impossible in our time. Implementing interest-free transactions in small communities with a limited population that lack bureaucratic complexities and for small amounts that fit within a voluntary network like local benevolent loan funds may be manageable and feasible. It is essential to note that in such cases, it must be assumed that all employees and accounting tools and security systems protecting people's money work around the clock and for the sake of God, and that the utilities of those places are not indirectly paid from the taxes of the people. When considering 'Islamic' transactions on a large scale, complex, and with high amounts commensurate with the population of a country, such operations will certainly require a legal loophole. Islamic bankers are forced to charge interest to cover banking administrative costs and maintain the principal capital in circulation, and to maintain appearances, they hide high-interest rates behind the so-called 'service charges.' In practice, Islamic banks in Iran have rates of 28-32% that surpass those of Western usurious banks. Today, in the Islamic Republic's banks, the interest rate paid to customers for depositing their money ranges from 10% to 22%, and when considering the interest paid on the principal amount, this figure increases. In contrast, if an individual wants to take a loan from the banking system, they must pay about 30% or more interest - although the official title of such transactions is interest-free or with Islamic service charges. When considering 'Islamic' transactions on a large scale, complex, and with high amounts commensurate with the population of a country, such operations will certainly require a legal loophole. Islamic bankers are forced to charge interest to cover banking administrative costs and maintain the principal capital in circulation, and to maintain appearances, they hide high-interest rates behind the so-called 'service charges.' Non-Muslim and mainly Western banks pay savers less than 1% or 1.5% interest for long-term deposits. Nowadays (for example, in the USA), one can take a loan for home purchase with an interest rate of less than 5%. Home loans cover up to 90% of the house's value, allowing buyers with good credit and minimal down payments to realize their dream of homeownership - and of course, it is not called Islamic banking. Intervention in the free economy is intervention in freedom - it seems that the intervention of religiously oriented governments in the economy is fundamentally unrelated to usury and usurers since these governments borrow money from global banks and pay the interest without fear of hellfire. Therefore, the aim of intervention by religiously oriented governments is not to regulate financial relations based on Sharia but to control freedoms, determine social relations, and manipulate those relations through a religiously oriented system. The undemocratic system seeks to constrain economic relations between individuals in a society to interpretations of religious texts rather than the very complex economic laws that currently govern international trade. Generally, this method of operation is not acceptable from the perspective of democracy and optimal governance, and various trends have different views on it along a political spectrum. Transactions between two parties are based on mutual agreement, and the principle is that if someone does not like the terms of the transaction, they do not enter into it. Of course, existing laws always oversee the validity and integrity of transactions and prevent fraud. The foundations of democratic thought and religious thought, if not directly opposed, at least have irreconcilable positions on many issues. Throughout contemporary history, many religious leaders have attempted to bridge the gap between religion and democracy, bringing them closer to a middle ground without conflict, but the level of success has not been significant, and there is still a long way to go. Historically, there has been an exclusionary and monopolistic view from both sides. For example, the behavior of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), the founder of modern Turkey, sought to cut the influence of the claimants of the Ottoman Islamic Empire by suppressing the clergy and appointing a state-paid cleric, then establishing the young Turkish Republic by denying the influence of religion. The opposite example is the Islamic Republic, which purged remnants of supporters of the monarchy and any dissenting groups. Social intervention with the promise of a utopian city - the intervention of religiously oriented governments does not limit itself to the economy. Intervention endlessly expands into private realms, culture, society, family, democratic thoughts, and lifestyles. The changing internal balance in both Iran and Turkey is an interesting example, and even more interesting is that as part of the Turkish population steps towards Islamic models, parts of the Iranian population distance themselves from those same models, creating concern for both governments. The differences in social movements in Turkey and Iran have little to do with the differences between Shia (in Iran) and Sunni (in Turkey) religions but rather with the people's reactions to historical impositions. Naturally, as long as rulers do not respect other existing thoughts on the political spectrum and only see their preferred color, the likelihood of an explosion increases more and more. Political actors in a religiously oriented society form a colorful political spectrum that has its own specific flavor and aroma. Religious extremists are always in the minority, but when they gain state power, they often become incompatible, monopolistic, and one-sided, wanting to guide society towards a historical direction that the people have left behind. The influence of religious thought and a sense of divine mission transforms the thoughts and actions of political actors, gradually turning the defense of freedoms and democracy, even if it is an electoral slogan, into a defense of a utopian city that they have depicted and become enamored with. In this context, the city-state of the Prophet, which the Arabic term 'Medina al-Nabi' grants glory and a halo of sanctity, approaches a Platonic ideal society and becomes a model whose promise of realization may be delayed until the Day of Judgment. The result is the distancing of the people and their disbelief in governmental promises; on the other hand, the distance of the government from the people's demands. Ultimately, the convergence of religion and democracy is tied to the political personalities of those who govern in a religious society and has nothing to do with the capacity of religion to embrace democracy. Politicians often represent and support more than 10 to 15 percent of their society, but by using political power and military-security backing and exploiting economic capabilities, they become populist regimes that rely on the masses rather than elites and thinkers. Such governments, at best, are self-centered and authoritarian, demanding their supporters confront opponents and remove them from the field by any means necessary. The result is that the bus of writers heads towards the valley, acid throwers target the faces of women and girls, and dissenters are physically eliminated while the decisive argument for democracy, which grants one vote for every 'head' [individual, human, person, male or female], remains untested or is rejected. An argument that can seize power through the unification of opposing thoughts and not through the annihilation of opponents. Religion and democracy: Are religion and democracy reconcilable? Although democracy is not just free elections, democracy without free elections is also not democracy. Religiously oriented regimes believe they have a divine and unquestionable mission that cannot deviate from the principle of 51 percent against 49 percent. They increasingly distance themselves from global human rights principles, social justice, and rights defined within the framework of civil society. No matter how much they initially came to power with popular support, they do not even believe in the first principle of democracy, which is free elections, and only view it as a political tool and ladder. One day they accept the party system and grant permission for parties to be formed, and the next day they close the party office and declare it illegal. Such regimes create non-civil institutions to direct the people's votes towards supporting their plans for consolidating power and, in practice, even show hostility towards the smallest manifestations and sprouts of democracy. For this reason, if the outcome of elections does not align with their wishes, they consider it invalid and, of course, will not hesitate to use any filters to engineer the elections in their desired direction; their mission is to expand the shadow of divine justice on earth, not to expand democracy. The problem is that they do not provide an accurate image of what is called divine justice. In response to the question of whether the convergence of religion and democracy is achievable in a society, it must be said that ultimately, the convergence of religion and democracy is tied to the political personalities of those who govern in a religious society and has nothing to do with the capacity of religion to embrace democracy. These individuals are the ones who create the capacity and remain loyal to it; or they destroy the capacities in the name of pure religion. Religion can potentially have the capacity to accept democracy. Religion is usually a set of simple and popular laws that have arisen from within society. Religion does not create society; it is created by society itself. Religious laws usually emerged in the distant past to facilitate social relations and clarify the norms of daily life. However, religiously oriented governments express it in a complex and obscure language and monopolize its interpretation to prevent its adaptation to the needs of modern society.