www.usip.org

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

SPECIAL REPORT 144 JULY 2005

ABOUT THE REPORT

On April 12, 2005, the United States Institute 

of Peace’s Grant Program organized a roundtable 

discussion featuring three Institute grantees 

who had conducted research in the Middle East 

on the role and impact of Islamist parties. This 

report summarizes their presentations. The three 

grantees—Professor Janine Astrid Clark (University 

of Guelph, Ontario), Professor Sultan Tepe (University 

of Illinois, Chicago), and Professor Carrie Rosefsky 

Wickham (Emory University, Atlanta)—were joined 

at the roundtable by discussant Daniel Brumberg, 

a professor at Georgetown University and special 

consultant to the Institute’s Muslim World Initiative. 

Judy Barsalou, the Institute’s vice president for 

Grants, moderated the discussion and prepared 

this report.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

SPECIAL REPORT

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

CONTENTS 

Introduction 2

Delving Deeper: A Case Study in Jordan 5

The Turkish Case: A “Pro-Islamic” Party in Power 8

Considering the Cases Altogether 10

Conclusions and Recommendations 10

Judy Barsalou

Islamists at 

the Ballot Box 

Findings from Egypt, Jordan, 

Kuwait, and Turkey

Summary 

• There is near-consensus among mainstream Islamist leaders in key Arab countries and 

Turkey on the value of democratic participation—that is, contestation for power via 

competitive elections. A number of Islamist groups in the Arab world and Turkey have 

registered as political parties and participated in elections.

• Islamist parties have members who range from those who are very conservative and 

develop their political positions based on shari’a law to those who are more liberal 

and promote the practice of ijtihad (the reinterpretation of Islamic law to fit current 

circumstances). 

• Regardless of their orientation, independent political parties in the Arab Middle East 

are deeply constrained by limits on free expression and by districting and voting 

procedures imposed by semiauthoritarian governments. This permits political liberalization but prevents the development of fully democratic systems.

• Islamist parties are motivated to participate in elections because they generally have 

far superior organizational support systems, principally through mosque networks, 

than do secular parties. Given their widespread popularity and superior organizing 

power, Islamist parties calculate that they have the most to gain as political systems 

are liberalized.

• As Islamist parties have entered electoral political systems, they have increasingly 

interacted with secular parties and groups. A key issue is whether, and under what 

circumstances, cooperation with secular parties promotes moderation in the politics 

of Islamist parties. 

• The evidence of how involvement in electoral politics affects Islamist political parties 

is mixed. Scholars continue to debate whether Islamist parties moderate their politics 

to gain political advantage or whether participation in competitive democratizing 

systems causes them to embrace new positions on core beliefs and values. 
2

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created 

by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international 

conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute meets 

its congressional mandate through an array of 

programs, including research grants, fellowships, 

professional training, education programs from 

high school through graduate school, conferences 

and workshops, library services, and publications. 

The Institute’s Board of Directors is appointed by 

the President of the United States and confirmed 

by the Senate.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, 

Washington, D.C. • María Otero (Vice Chair), President, 

ACCION International, Boston, Mass. • Betty F. Bumpers, 

Founder and former President, Peace Links, Washington, 

D.C. • Holly J. Burkhalter, Advocacy Director, Physicians 

for Human Rights, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. 

Crocker, James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic 

Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University 

• Laurie S. Fulton, Partner, Williams and Connolly, 

Washington, D.C. • Charles Horner, Senior Fellow, Hudson 

Institute, Washington, D.C. • Seymour Martin Lipset, 

Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University 

• Mora L. McLean, President, Africa-America Institute, 

New York, N.Y. • Barbara W. Snelling, former State 

Senator and former Lieutenant Governor, Shelburne, Vt.

MEMBERS EX OFFICIO

Arthur E. Dewey, Assistant Secretary of State for Population, 

Refugees, and Migration • Michael M. Dunn, Lieutenant 

General, U.S. Air Force; President, National Defense University • 

Peter W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs • Richard H. Solomon, President, 

United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting)

Introduction

In an era when much attention has focused on how to promote democracy in Middle 

Eastern countries with centralized, semiauthoritarian governments, the inclusion of 

Islamist political parties in electoral politics has been a subject of vigorous debate. 

How does their inclusion affect the political systems of which they are a part? Does 

electoral participation by Islamist political parties engender moderation in their politics? 

If so, is moderation on sensitive political issues a temporary expedient to gain political 

advantage or is it expressive of changes in core values? Is there evidence that Islamist 

parties have cooperated or collaborated with secular political parties and other groups to 

promote political goals of mutual interest, and what happens when they do? Under what 

circumstances does such cooperation come about, and how extensive is it? When, if at 

all, does such cooperation induce conservative Islamist political parties to moderate their 

views and political values? How do Islamist parties relate to centralized political authority in their societies, and what happens when an Islamist party comes into power? 

These are among the questions investigated by Professors Janine Astrid Clark, Sultan 

Tepe, and Carrie Rosefsky Wickham in their work on the role of Islamist parties in the 

Middle East. Their research, which was based on extensive fieldwork in Turkey (Tepe), 

Jordan (Clark and Wickham), and Egypt and Kuwait (Wickham), clearly revealed that in 

each country Islamist parties have eagerly participated in electoral politics. But this 

participation has had mixed results—both with respect to the impact of participation 

on the parties’ own politics and the parties’ impact on the political systems of which 

they are a part. This report summarizes the professors’ findings, which they presented at 

a recent roundtable discussion organized by the United States Institute of Peace’s Grant 

Program.

Shortcomings in the Scholarly Literature

Professor Wickham argued that much of the existing literature on Islamist parties is 

problematic on three accounts. First, it tends to equate the notion of “moderation” with 

“growing support for democracy” on the part of Islamist parties. Wickham indicated 

that, as a consequence, the literature largely “fails to acknowledge the possibility that 

Islamist opposition leaders might come to embrace certain aspects of democracy while 

continuing to reject others.” Clark concurred with Wickham that the existing literature 

has limitations in this respect because it refers principally to “moderate” Islamists as 

persons who accept the procedural elements of participating in elections—without 

regard to their vision of what shape a future Islamic state might take—as opposed to 

“radical” Islamists who reject participation in secular political systems. 

According to Wickham, an undifferentiated approach to Islamist parties is reflected 

in a second problem in most of the literature on the subject, namely the tendency by 

many scholars to treat moderate Islamist parties as “monolithic entities supportive of 

a single interpretation of Islam and committed to a single set of political objectives.” 

Instead, Wickham argued, Islamist parties represent a wide array of positions on strategic 

political issues as well as on “end goals.” In this regard, she said that “while the leaders 

of Islamist opposition groups in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait remain committed to the 

establishment of a political system based on Islamic law, or shari’a, they differ among 

themselves on the question of how much of the ‘historical shari’a’—that is, the corpus 

of traditional Islamic legal rulings inherited from the past—can and should be revised.” 

Clark believed that much of the literature that argues that participation in elections and 

cooperation with non-Islamic groups leads to moderation in political positions and views 

does so without examining the nature of cooperation—that is, what exactly cooperation 

entails and whether the conditions of cooperation do, in fact, foster moderation. 

The third major problem with the existing literature on Islamist parties, according to 

Wickham, is that it fails to establish clearly whether they moderate their politics because 

they actually have come to embrace new positions on “core beliefs and values,” or 
3

whether they simply take these positions, perhaps on a temporary basis, to gain political 

advantage. In this connection, Wickham asked, “If Islamist moderation is in fact driven, 

at least in part, by a deeper process of what we might call ‘democratic learning,’ what 

types of participation are likely to trigger it, and why are some Islamist leaders more 

predisposed to such learning than others?”

Motivations for Participation

Wickham looked for an answer to this question through her research, which has focused 

on the three main Islamist political organizations in three countries—the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt, the Islamic Action Front (IAF) in Jordan, and the Islamic Constitutional Movement (ICM) in Kuwait. Additionally, she examined the behavior of two 

relatively new Islamist parties, the Wasat (Center) Party in Jordan and the Wasat Party 

in Egypt, which have split from the IAF and the MB, respectively.

After studying what she described as the “reformist or islahi trend within the nonviolent mainstream of the ‘revivalist’ Islamist movement” in these three countries, Wickham 

arrived at three main conclusions. First, these parties have pushed for participation in 

their respective political systems “even when these systems fall short of Islamic ideals.” 

Second, within these groups, Wickham discovered a drive both to promote “greater 

transparency and internal democracy” within their organizations and a commitment to 

work with secular parties to achieve shared goals. Third, among these groups, Wickham 

pointed to what she called “a call for change in the end goals of the Islamic movement, 

including calls for a revision of historic conceptions of shari’a rule.” Wickham immediately cautioned, however, that reality is “more complex.” The leaders of these parties 

have differing levels of commitment to the above three variables. She indicated that 

“while near consensus has been reached on the value of participation in democratic 

elections, the question of how much, and what type, of organizational and ideological 

reforms should accompany it remain a subject of heated internal debate [within the 

various parties].”

Regarding the first variable—a commitment by Islamist parties to participate in 

electoral politics—Wickham suggested that it is difficult to ascertain precisely how much 

electoral support Islamist parties have developed. This is because the semiauthoritarian 

governments of the countries in which these parties operate place limitations on free 

communication and on fair districting and voting practices. It seems clear, however, that 

Islamist parties have an advantage over secular political parties because, according to 

Wickham, the latter lack “anything equivalent to the vast network of mosques through 

which Islamists can mobilize support.” Wickham suggested that a major reason why 

Islamist political party leaders have actively engaged in electoral politics and are “some 

of the most outspoken advocates of democratic elections in the Arab world” is because 

they assume that “they would be the first to benefit from an expansion of democratic 

freedoms, at least in the short term.” They have justified their participation in electoral 

politics in relation to the Islamic concept of shura, or consultation. In this connection, 

Wickham added, “Some leaders have even gone so far as to equate shura and democracy, 

in a sharp break from earlier statements depicting calls for democracy as an assault on 

Islam, and despite the stigma historically attached to democracy as a secular political 

system rooted in the West.”

Embracing New Values?

Wickham examined the evidence on whether the main Islamist parties in Egypt, Jordan, 

and Kuwait have substantially moderated their views on key social and political issues as 

a result of their participation in electoral politics. She concluded, first of all, that groups 

in all three countries have embraced democracy “as a set of procedural rules.” The record 

on their willingness to support “the full range of civil and political rights guaranteed to 

Islamist parties represent a wide 

array of positions on strategic 

political issues as well as on 

“end goals.” 

It is difficult to ascertain precisely how much electoral support 

Islamist parties have developed.

Islamist parties have an advantage over secular political parties 

because, according to Wickham, the latter lack “anything 

equivalent to the vast network of 

mosques through which Islamists 

can mobilize support.” 

Some leaders have even gone 

so far as to equate shura and 

democracy, in a sharp break 

from earlier statements depicting calls for democracy as an 

assault on Islam.
4

citizens of democracies in the West,” however, is mixed. For example, some leaders of 

the ICM in Kuwait remain opposed to women’s participation in electoral politics as voters and office seekers, but there has been some evolution in the ICM’s position on this 

issue in recent months after prolonged internal debate. IAF leaders in Jordan opposed a 

temporary law permitting women the right of uncontested divorce. Further, MB leaders in 

Egypt, like their IAF counterparts, support the right of women to participate in political 

life. But, according to Wickham, “[they] insist that such participation not lead to any 

violation of ethical rules laid down by the shari’a.” In sum, Wickham noted that, “in 

defense of the religious character of society, and the primacy of the family—rather than 

the individual—as its basic social unit, leaders of the Brotherhood, IAF, and ICM reject 

the liberal ethos which informs the secular legal codes of the West.” The current views 

of these three parties regarding Islamic rule, if translated into public policy, pose risks to 

equal citizenship not only for women but also for minorities and secular and observant 

Muslims with dissenting views.

That is not the whole story, however. Wickham found evidence of what she called 

“deepening Islamic auto-reform,” particularly among the Wasat Parties in Jordan and 

Egypt. In what she described as “a progression from strategic participation in elections 

to calls for changes in . . . end goals,” Wickham pointed to growing support among some 

Islamist leaders for ijtihad, the reinterpretation of Islamic sacred texts in relation to current circumstances. In this connection, she indicated that “a small but growing number 

of Islamist leaders are invoking the principle of ijtihad to challenge the validity of traditional shari’a rulings inherited from the past, and to articulate new positions on such 

sensitive issues as the proper scope for intellectual and political pluralism and the rights 

of women, minorities, and nonobservant Muslims in a modern Islamic state.” Wasat Party 

platforms in Egypt and Jordan give clearest expression to this trend, particularly on the 

issues of financial and organizational transparency, the role of women and non-Muslims, 

and cooperation with secular parties and NGOs promoting democratic reforms.

Referring to findings presented by Clark in her presentation, Wickham indicated that 

some might conclude that her findings regarding the moderating effects of cross-party 

interaction contradict those of Clark. Clark’s case study of the Higher Committee for the 

Coordination of National Opposition Parties found no evidence that IAF compromised its 

core political positions through cooperation with secular parties. Wickham emphasized, 

however, that there is good evidence that the Wasat Parties in Jordan and Egypt have 

moderated their positions on important issues through sustained dialogue and coalition 

building with secular parties.

The Relationship between Participation and Value Change

Wickham argued that there is evidence that participation in electoral politics can lead 

to changes in core values and beliefs among some Islamists, particularly by “middlegeneration Islamists who spearheaded the movement’s entry into electoral contests for 

political power.” She suggested, moreover, that “some types of participation were more 

likely to trigger value change than others,” particularly when Islamists have the “incentive and opportunity to break out of the insular networks of movement politics and 

engage in sustained cooperation with secular groups in pursuit of democratic reform.” 

This tendency among the MB, IAF, and ICM, however, is limited by “intragroup dynamics,” and conservative old guard leaders in all three groups are “generally resistant to any 

redefinition of the group’s historic mission.” The social conservatism of the base constituencies of the ICM and the IAF, in particular—especially in rural, tribal areas—has 

also limited or blocked the political evolution in these parties on key issues. Wickham 

noted that in Egypt and Jordan the Islamist leaders most likely to embrace changes in 

core values have left the mainstream Islamic organizations and formed their own groups 

or remained independent. “The result,” according to Wickham, “is that revisionist opinThe current views of these three 

parties regarding Islamic rule, if 

translated into public policy, pose 

risks to equal citizenship not only 

for women but also for minorities. 

There is evidence that participation in electoral politics can 

lead to changes in core values and beliefs among some 

Islamists.
5

ion is hemmed in by more conservative voices in the leading political organizations of 

the Islamic movement, while new parties with a more explicit revisionist agenda have a 

very limited mass base.” 

Given these realities, Wickham concluded that mere participation in elections is insufficient to motivate parties to liberalize their party platforms and agendas. She argued 

that the extent to which parties do embrace change in core values has to do with four 

variables: (1) whether parties can “go it alone without changing their agendas” or must 

engage in coalition building with other parties or forces, including parties with different 

positions on important issues; (2) whether such cross-party interaction “enhances party 

leaders’ receptivity to new ideas”; (3) whether new ideas can be “justified in movementvalid terms”; and (4) whether circumstances permit “auto-reformers” to “marginalize 

internal critics and build a constituency for change within their own movement.”

Policy Implications for the West

Wickham cautioned that “there is no way that democratic reform in the Arab world can 

succeed if the region’s largest, best organized, and most popular opposition groups”—the 

Islamist groups she studied—“are excluded from it.” Considering how best to incorporate 

such groups into democratic transitions in the region, she argued for an approach that 

“falls somewhere between exclusion and inclusion, a path we might call ‘inclusion with 

conditions’” to reduce the possibility of takeover by a “popular but illiberal” group.

According to Wickham, strategies to promote democratic reform involving Islamists 

should include the following: (1) encouragement for Islamist leaders to “participate 

in national, cross-partisan efforts to establish a common framework for reform;” (2) a 

strengthening of secular democratic parties “so they can eventually serve as an effective 

counterweight to the Islamic trend”; and (3), in the absence of strong secular democratic 

parties, development of “procedural mechanisms to prevent any one group from monopolizing political power.” Such measures could include “construction of heterogeneous electoral districts, the devolution of power from national to subnational governments, rules 

which promote coalition building and compromise across partisan lines, and the granting 

of veto power to an unelected but prodemocratic body, such as a constitutional court.”

Delving Deeper: A Case Study in Jordan

In an effort to understand precisely what happens when an Islamist party coordinates 

with non-Islamist political groups to create political change, Professor Janine Astrid 

Clark focused her research on a particular political coalition in Jordan—the Higher Committee for the Coordination of National Opposition Parties (HC). The size and composition of this group has changed over time but currently encompasses thirteen opposition 

parties, including the IAF, the most dominant party in the HC, two Ba’athist parties, 

the Communist Party, and several other leftist parties. Its members meet regularly and 

frequently. The spokesperson for the HC—a position that rotates among the parties every 

three months—manages the meetings, while a permanent, non-rotating leadership committee composed of six members from the six biggest and most powerful parties, including the IAF, sets the HC’s agenda. According to Clark, the HC has “cooperated successfully 

on joint actions, such as sending memorandums to the king and/or statements to the 

press.” She added that “the IAF is very proud of the HC and claims that it is a democratic 

model for the Arab world.”

The Islamic Action Front

Licensed as an umbrella political party in 1992 representing primarily the political wing 

of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as a limited number of independent Islamists, the 

Mere participation in elections is 

insufficient to motivate parties 

to liberalize their party platforms and agendas.

“There is no way that democratic 

reform in the Arab world can succeed if the region’s largest, best 

organized, and most popular 

opposition groups are excluded 

from it.”
6

IAF first came into existence following the 1989 elections. In that election, members of 

the MB and independent Islamists collectively won 40 percent of the seats in Jordan’s 

lower house of parliament. But implementation of the new law that governed the 1993 

elections resulted in a decline of seats won by Islamists by about one-third—even 

though their share of the total vote was about the same in the two elections—around 

16 percent. According to Clark, “While under the old system, voters could cast as many 

ballots as there were seats in his/her constituency, the new law—still in enforcement 

today—gives each voter one vote regardless of the number of seats in his/her district 

(which could vary from two to nine). The new law had a dramatic effect as it forced voters to choose between tribal loyalties and other political leanings, such as Communist 

or Islamist.” Moreover, said Clark, the new law also favored rural, tribal areas and small 

towns—both traditionally supportive of the monarchy—as opposed to larger urban areas 

that form the base of Islamist support.

Clark indicated that the IAF chose to sit out the 1997 elections to protest press 

restrictions and the one-person, one-vote system. When elections were next held in 

2003, IAF participation led it to receive more votes than any other political party (winning 17 seats out of 110), although the majority were won by pro-regime candidates. 

Given these developments, the IAF had significant incentives to participate in the HC as 

a means of gaining leverage vis-à-vis the regime. Clark argued, “Frozen out of power and 

faced with declining political liberties and democratic freedoms, the cost of noncooperation [by the IAF ] was simply very low.”

Compromise on Sensitive Issues?

Clark examined the interactions between the IAF and the HC on three particularly sensitive political issues: the amendment of the honor crimes law (Law 340) in Jordan; the 

personal status law giving women greater rights to divorce; and the quota promoting 

women’s participation in parliament. Clark argued that the conditions of participation in 

the HC require very little actual cooperation or compromise from its members. By tracking the positions of the IAF on these issues and its interactions with other HC members 

in relation to them, she further revealed significant limitations in IAF willingness to 

bring sensitive issues, particularly those related to shari’a law, to the HC for potential 

discussion, raising doubts about the relationship between cross-party cooperation and 

IAF moderation. 

• Honor Crimes: According to Clark, four different laws address a man’s right to “cleanse” 

his family’s honor by killing or injuring a female relative and her partner engaged 

in “unlawful” sexual transgressions. Legislative efforts to overturn these laws were 

defeated four times by Jordan’s elected lower house of parliament after being 

approved by the appointed upper house, although the cabinet approved a temporary 

amendment to one of the laws—Law 340—in December 2001 when parliament was

suspended. Clark noted that while the IAF opposed honor crimes as “un-Islamic,” they 

also opposed the amendment to Law 340 introducing tougher punishments for adulterers because clear penalties for adultery are specified in shari’a law. Even though 

the IAF had concerns about various aspects of the four laws regulating honor crimes 

that were similar to views held by some secular lawyers and human rights activists, 

Clark argued that the IAF was not interested in engaging with others opposed to the 

amendment because the IAF ’s views were based on religious objections while other 

opponents’ concerns were of a secular nature.

• Divorce Law: The second case cited by Clark addressed an amendment in divorce 

law—namely, the right of women to ask for divorce on demand without evidence of 

maltreatment, abandonment, etc. It was passed by the cabinet as a temporary law in 

2001 after parliament was suspended. Clark noted that, similar to the amendment to 

“Frozen out of power and faced 

with declining political liberties 

and democratic freedoms, the 

cost of noncooperation [by the 

IAF ] was simply very low.”

While the IAF opposed honor 

crimes as “un-Islamic,” they also 

opposed the amendment to Law 

340 introducing tougher punishments for adulterers because clear 

penalties for adultery are 

specified in shari’a law. 
7

the honor crime law, it was twice defeated in the lower house of parliament with 

the help of the IAF, despite the fact that it was supported by Chief Islamic Justice 

Sheikh Tamimi, the king’s adviser on Islamic affairs. Clark indicated that the IAF, 

in fact, supported women’s right to divorce but opposed the divorce procedures as 

“un-Islamic” because the new law removed the role of the judge.

• Quota for Women: The third case cited by Clark dealt with the quota for women in 

parliament, which arose out of a context in which women won no seats in the first 

elections in 1989, 1 seat in the 1993 elections, and none in the 1997 elections. 

Clark indicated that in 2003 the cabinet passed a temporary law granting women 

6 out of 110 seats in parliament—alongside quotas for Christians (9 seats), Circassians and Chechens (3 seats), and Bedouins (6 seats). The IAF opposed the quota 

for women arguing, said Clark, “that women are not a minority [and] the quota was 

unconstitutional as the constitution gives equality between women and men.” 

What Clark found interesting about the three cases is that while the IAF opposed 

all three amendments and would have found support for its position among certain 

members of the HC, they cooperated with the HC only on one—the quota for women. 

She argued that “of the three cases, the quota stands out in that there is no specific 

religious injunction regarding quotas. And it is precisely because of this that the quota 

was the only issue discussed by the HC for possible cooperation.” Clark asked, “Why 

did other members of the Higher Committee also not raise the issue of honor crimes 

or khula [divorce on demand] for possible discussion?” She concluded that “the Higher 

Committee simply does not discuss controversial issues upon which members recognize 

there will be dissent.”

In short, Clark indicated that her study of the HC suggests that “cross-ideological 

interactions per se cannot be said to lead to the increased tolerance and moderation of 

Islamist parties and, as a result, a deepening of the democratization process.” “Cooperation, as practiced by the Higher Committee,” she concluded, “is largely a matter of 

coordination between parties over issues on which there are established, shared interests. It is not a cooperation that involves compromise or the ‘give and take’ inherent 

to the spirit of tolerance.” While cooperation between the IAF and other members of 

the HC extended over a wide array of issues, it did not occur on issues with a “direct 

bearing upon shari’a [law].” Moreover, because the IAF is by far the largest party in 

the HC, issues which the IAF was unwilling to discuss with other members simply were 

not raised. Clark noted that “Rarely is a memo of protest sent [by the HC] to the government if the IAF is not a signatory.” She added, “Higher Committee members avoid 

issues related to shari’a, recognizing their inability to find a common ground between 

the Islamists and the secularists.”

In response to a question about why the IAF should bother to participate in the HC 

and coordinate or compromise with other HC members when real power resides in the 

regime, Clark indicated that the IAF leaders have indicated a desire to join their voices 

to those of other political parties—even very weak ones—to show that “all parties are 

in this together against the state.”

The Turkish Case: A “Pro-Islamic” Party in Power

The role of Islam in politics looks very different in Turkey. The “pro-Islamic” Justice 

and Development Party (JDP) came to power in the 2002 elections on the heels of an 

economic crisis and without significant opposition. Professor Sultan Tepe presented 

material on the ideology and performance of the JDP, which she characterized as having 

the “task of defining the terms of new Islamic politics in Turkey.” 

“Cross-ideological interactions 

per se cannot be said to lead 

to the increased tolerance and 

moderation of Islamist parties 

and, as a result, a deepening of 

the democratization process.”
8

The JDP’s Three Dilemmas

Tepe argued that the JDP faces three central dilemmas, the first of which relates to 

defining its identity. Although observers outside Turkey commonly refer to the JDP as an 

“Islamist” party, that term does not fully explain the complexity of the JDP’s identity or 

distinguish it adequately from Islamist parties in Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, and elsewhere. 

Tepe pointed out that political apathy, electoral rules, and the demise of secular parties play an important role in the success of Islamist parties. Three factors need to be 

taken into account in the assessment of the JDP’s electoral success: (1) the increasing 

apathy of the Turkish electorate (in the 2002 election 20 percent of eligible voters did not 

cast ballots); (2) the 10 percent national threshold rule in Turkey that leaves supporters 

of small parties garnering less than 10 percent of the vote unrepresented in parliament 

(more than 40 percent of the votes cast in the 2002 election); and (3) the leadership and 

ideological conflicts marking the secular parties of the left and the right, which mired 

these parties in controversy in the 2002 election and left the JDP without meaningful or 

effective political opposition.

According to Tepe, the JDP’s leadership maintains that its primary goal is to “limit 

the gap between the state and the public and integrate the common values of Turkish 

society into the policies of the Turkish state.” Tepe noted that “Islam is explicitly mentioned in Conservative Democracy, the party’s statement of ideology, only in the section 

that discusses whether Islam and democracy are compatible with each other. Conservative 

Democracy concludes that they are not in conflict.” It specifically states, “Although religion is sacred, religious ideas are not sacred, and there can be more than one idea in the 

public sphere. Therefore pluralism is acceptable. Experiments, and trial and error learning, 

are acceptable not only in the natural sciences but also in the social sciences. Therefore 

these social inventions are acceptable to religion.” 

Tepe argued that “while the JDP’s roots are that of a pro-Islamic party, it tries to 

distance itself from the Islamists and goes to the other extreme, presenting itself as an 

almost un-Islamic party. Instead of bringing Islamic ideas into the marketplace of ideas 

the party either subsumes them under the ‘common values label’ or shows that democratic 

principles can be deduced from them.” In coining its ideology “conservative democracy,” 

the JDP presents this largely undefined concept as the “ideological anchor” for its policies. According to Tepe, this ideological elusiveness may prevent the party’s successful 

development. 

The JDP’s second dilemma, Tepe argued, “results from its commitment to introduce 

institutional reforms swiftly, as a way to limit the state’s role, decentralize political power, 

and improve the free market economy.” Indeed, the party’s legislative record is impressive; 

according to Tepe, under the JDP the government has enacted a “record high number of 

bills (553) . . . preparing the way for entry into the EU.” The dilemma, however, is that 

most of these radical reforms have been adopted rapidly with little or no public debate, 

even though many provisions raise important questions. For instance, some reforms were 

meant to limit the role of the state, yet, according to Tepe, they have the potential of 

“actually strengthening it even further.” Paradoxically, said Tepe, “While the JDP aggressively seeks to transform Turkey’s centralized state structure into ‘administrative federalism’, it has adopted a policy of centralization in its party organization, and is excluding 

dissenters and civil society from the policymaking process.” The mode of politics adopted 

by the party brings to mind Ghassan Salame’s phrase (and book title), “democracy without democrats.” Tepe said, “The party seeks to secure the institutional foundation of a 

democratic society without permitting individuals in its party and outside of it to play 

an active role in this transformation.”

The JDP’s third dilemma, according to Tepe, “concerns the party’s conviction that 

selective reforms will create a domino effect that will resolve controversial issues automatically.” The party believes that important issues pertaining to the public role of 

Islam can be addressed more effectively after the reforms have curbed the power of the 

Political apathy, electoral rules, 

and the demise of secular parties 

play an important role in the 

success of Islamist parties. 

“While the JDP’s roots are that 

of a pro-Islamic party, it tries 

to distance itself from the 

Islamists and goes to the other 

extreme, presenting itself as an 

almost un-Islamic party.
9

state and removed the restrictions on Turkey’s public sphere. Tepe cited the controversial 

ban on Islamic headscarves (turbans) in public institutions—such as parliament and 

schools—a policy that predates the JDP’s rise to power. One might assume that the JDP 

would be interested in addressing this issue directly, which it has not done. Instead, 

Tepe argued, the JDP has relied on civil-society organizations and international institutions for the solution of controversial issues. In the case of headscarves, Tepe said 

that the “European Court of Human Rights recently decided to endorse Turkey’s current 

headscarf policy. Contrary to the belief of the JDP elite that the court would revoke the 

ban on turbans, the court concluded: ‘Measures taken in universities to prevent certain 

fundamentalist religious movements from pressuring students who do not practice the 

religion in question, or those belonging to another religion, can be justified.’” Tepe 

argued that “the decision shattered one of the major components of the JDP’s approach 

to the turban issue.”

This gap between the party’s rhetorical commitment and actual practice also manifests itself in the party’s failure to promote the participation of women in political life. 

Tepe noted that in the 2004 local elections, “only sixteen of the JDP’s 3,184 candidates 

for local leadership positions were female and only one woman won office.” This failure, 

Tepe suggested, grew out of the party’s “election driven approach, based on a multilayered selection process (including local popularity pools, references from the party organization, and interviews by the party center). The overall process reinforces the power of 

popular, traditional leaders, which, in effect, blocks the advance of female candidates.”

Fear of weakening the JDP’s power and its exhaustive reform agenda has silenced 

the debate on headscarves and other controversial issues that existed among Islamists 

before the JDP came to power. According to Tepe, “The fear that outspoken women’s 

groups will undermine the JDP’s power generates a form of self-censorship among female 

supporters.” The result, Tepe, suggested, is “a process of politics without politics and 

politics of Islam without Islam”—that is to say, a policymaking process without the 

competition of ideas, negotiations, or compromises in which Islamic issues are treated 

as derivative of other issues.

The ability of the JDP to forge a novel pro-Islamic and democratic platform, according 

to Tepe, will depend on whether the party successfully “articulates a clear ideology without being elusive; translates its commitment to the procedures and ideals of democracy 

to the actual practice of liberal democracy; questions its reductionist approach which 

sees the root of all problems, including those derived from the public role of Islam, in the 

ineffective state structure and weak liberal economy; constructs policy solutions to controversial issues by addressing differences and incorporating views of competing social 

groups.” If it does not accomplish these tasks, Tepe concluded, “the JDP will [ just] be 

another center right party that failed in its attempts to include Islam in Turkey’s public 

sphere and serve as a model for other Islamist parties.”

Considering the Cases Altogether

Professor Brumberg proposed three responses to the presentations. First, the inclusion of 

Islamist parties in democratic political change remains a tremendous challenge because 

their agendas are fundamentally different from those of secular political parties. In the 

Arab world, the way this challenge has been handled by semiauthoritarian regimes is to 

allow political liberalization without democracy. Political parties, including Islamist parties, seek patrons within the state, and “participation” in politics resembles lobbying more 

than it does direct representation of political interests. In such systems of state-managed 

political liberalization, according to Brumberg, “nobody wins and nobody loses.” For that 

reason, it is difficult to measure Islamist party commitment to democratic values because 

no party is ever really allowed to exercise real political authority. The extraordinary paradox of politics in the Arab Middle East, he said, is that state monopolization of political 

Fear of weakening the JDP’s 

power and its exhaustive reform 

agenda has silenced the debate 

on headscarves and other controversial issues that existed 

among Islamists before the JDP 

came to power.

The inclusion of Islamist parties 

in democratic political change 

remains a tremendous challenge 

because their agendas are fundamentally different from those 

of secular political parties. 
10

power prevents the development of democratic systems in which Islamist parties, such as 

the IAF, could win control through elections and impose their agendas without regard to 

the rights of others.

Brumberg’s second observation was that preoccupation, especially in the West, with 

how to update, reform, or “fix” Islam misses a more fundamental need. What counts 

most in regulating the behavior of Islamist parties, he argued, are the constraints and 

opportunities operating on those parties. In the Arab world, Islamist parties are vying 

for power in systems in which non-Islamic parties—other than those controlled by the 

regime—have no significant presence or voice. This lack of serious secular political-party 

alternatives to Islamist parties suggests that Islamist parties will have fewer incentives 

to moderate their politics.

A third and related point made by Brumberg focused on the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the Turkish case, in which non-Islamic political forces have enjoyed 

organized support for many years. Islamists in Turkey know that secular political parties 

present the electorate with serious non-Islamic alternatives. The JDP feels the pressure, 

moreover, of an export-oriented Turkish bourgeoisie, including members of the JDP itself, 

which has a keen interest in the development of Turkish democracy and its linkage to 

Turkey’s accession to the European Union. The existence of this interest in Turkey generates deep contradictions within the JDP, whose more religiously conservative supporters 

feel it is insufficiently “Islamic.” The Turkish example of a relatively moderate Islamist 

party—the JDP—that operates within a competitive political system provides a useful 

example for the Arab world, Brumberg argued. The main challenge for Arab societies, he 

concluded, is to create political arenas in which Islamists participate but are constrained 

by the need to compete with secular political parties and thus moderate their positions 

in order to maintain their popularity. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

• Islamist political parties in the Middle East are diverse in nature, as are the systems 

in which they operate. 

• Much of the existing literature equates the notion of “moderation” with “growing 

support for democracy” by Islamist parties. In fact, there is good evidence that the 

more conservative Islamist parties embrace procedural aspects of democracy while 

rejecting the liberal values that go with it. 

• To better assess whether Islamist parties endorse democracy or not depends, in part, 

on whether the definition of democracy goes beyond the minimalist interpretation of 

democracy as participation in elections. When the definition includes protection of 

individual rights and liberties, it becomes clear that some Islamist parties do not support democracy because they endorse a reduced version of political freedom—namely, 

freedom from the state at the expense of the exercise of broader liberties within civil 

society.

• Mere participation in elections is insufficient to motivate parties to liberalize their 

party platforms and agendas. Moreover, conservative Islamist parties in Egypt and 

Jordan cooperate and sometimes have joined forces with secular and even progressive political forces and parties to voice joint opposition to government policies. 

But there is little evidence that participation in elections or interaction between the 

secular parties and mainstream conservative Islamist parties in Egypt, Jordan, and 

Kuwait (the MB, the IAF, and the ICM, respectively) has caused the Islamist parties 

to compromise on issues that have direct bearing on shari’a law.

• If these conservative Islamist parties were to come to power tomorrow, the translation of their current views into public policy would pose risks to equal citizenship not 

only for women but also for minorities and secular Muslims with dissenting views.

Islamist political parties 

in the Middle East are diverse 

in nature, as are the systems 

in which they operate. 

To better assess whether 

Islamist parties endorse 

democracy or not depends, in 

part, on whether the definition of democracy goes beyond 

the minimalist interpretation 

of democracy as participation 

in elections.
11

• In contrast, new, breakaway Islamist parties—such as the Wasat Parties in Jordan 

and Egypt—have a more liberal orientation and are more inclined to promote ijtihad

(reinterpretation of Islamic law in relation to current circumstances). Unlike the 

more conservative Islamist parties, which sometimes cooperate with secular parties 

to express opposition to government policies, the more liberal Islamist parties have 

modified their positions on shari’a law issues in a process aided by interaction with 

secular parties and forces.

• The structural circumstances in which Islamist parties compete for support significantly affect outcomes. Electoral systems in the Arab region have been designed by 

semiauthoritarian regimes to permit political liberalization but prevent the emergence 

of fully democratic governments. The ability of secular as well as religious parties to 

mobilize support has been affected by these constraints. Generally speaking, however, the organizational power and outreach of the secular parties does not compare 

favorably to that of the Islamist parties, which can draw upon vast networks of religious institutions.

• The situation is different in Turkey, where an Islamist party—the JDP—is in power 

but is mindful of competition from well-established secular political parties. In an 

effort to appeal to a broader constituency and to promote the accession of Turkey to 

the European Union—a matter of paramount importance to Turkey’s export-oriented 

bourgeoisie—the JDP has declined to take strong positions on sensitive political 

issues of importance to its core constituency, such as the wearing of Islamic headscarves.

• The absence of strong secular political parties in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait means 

that conservative Islamist parties are less likely to modify their positions on core 

issues than they would if they were forced to compete with strong, more liberal 

secular parties, as they do in Turkey.

• A central paradox of the politics of the Arab Middle East is that state monopolization 

of political power prevents the development of democratic systems in which conservative Islamist parties could win control through elections and impose their agendas 

without regard to the rights of others. The main challenge for the region is to create 

political arenas in which Islamists are able to participate but are also constrained by 

the need to compete with secular political parties, compelling them to moderate their 

positions to maintain their popularity.
Of Related Interest

A number of other publications from the United States Institute of Peace examine issues 

related to Africa and political Islam. 

Recent Institute reports include

• Political Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Need for a New Research and Diplomatic 

Agenda. (Special Report, May 2005)

• Ijtihad: Reinterpreting Islamic Principles for the Twenty-first Century (Special Report, 

August 2004)

• Islamist Politics in Iraq after Saddam Hussein (Special Report, August 2003)

• Islam and Democracy (Special Report, September 2002)

To obtain an Institute report (available free of charge), write United States Institute of 

Peace, 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 200, Washington DC 20036-3011; call (202) 429-3832; 

fax (202) 429-6063; or e-mail: usip_requests@usip.org.

Recent books from USIP Press include

Islam and Democracy: Religion, Politics, and Power in the Middle East, by Timothy D. Sisk 

(1992)

For book sales and order information, call (800) 868-8064 (U.S. toll-free only) or (703) 

661-1590, or fax (703) 661-1501.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this report can be 

found at our website (www.usip.org), 

together with additional information 

on the subject.