Islam and Citizenship
Why Liberal Democracy Cannot Survive an Islamic Political Majority
Imagine a society made up of Christians, secular humanists, and utilitarians. These groups see the world very differently. Christians ground their beliefs in the dignity of the human person, made in the image of God. Secular humanists reject religion entirely and put individual autonomy at the top of their moral hierarchy. Utilitarians aren’t driven by theology or personal rights, they focus on maximizing overall well-being for the greatest number.
Now, despite all these differences, they might still agree on a principle like equal liberty, the idea that every person should have the same basic freedoms under the law.
Christians might support equal liberty because they see every human being as possessing inherent dignity, worthy of protection.
Secular humanists might support it because it secures individual autonomy, allowing each person to live according to their own conscience.
Utilitarians might support it because it creates stability and peace, which maximizes the well-being of society as a whole.
Different reasons. Same principle. And this shared political principle allows them to function under the same government without killing each other.
Rawls’s “Overlapping Consensus”
This is exactly what the American political philosopher John Rawls called overlapping consensus. In a modern democracy, you’ve got people with all kinds of comprehensive doctrines, which is just philosophy-speak for the big-picture worldview that shapes your moral and political opinions. That can be a religion, a secular philosophy, or any deep moral framework. Rawls says that for a stable, just society, you don’t need everyone to share the same comprehensive doctrine. What you need is for different groups to agree on the same political principles, for their own reasons. The principles themselves are freestanding. That means they’re not taken from the Bible, the Qur’an, the writings of Karl Marx, or Nietzsche. They’re not justified by one religion or ideology. They stand on their own, grounded in political values that people from many worldviews can accept.
Even though I have argued before that these so-called “freestanding” liberal democratic principles were in fact historically shaped and nurtured by the Judeo-Christian worldview, for the sake of this article, let’s assume they truly are freestanding. Let’s take Rawls at his word and treat them as if they exist independently of any religious or philosophical tradition, available for all to adopt regardless of their cultural or theological roots.
This is what makes a liberal democracy possible. We all sign onto the same rules of the game, equality before the law, protection of basic rights, freedom of conscience, but we sign on for different reasons.
Rawls adds an important qualifier: this overlapping consensus only works among reasonable comprehensive doctrines. What does “reasonable” mean? It means you accept that other people will hold different worldviews, and you agree not to impose your own as the law of the land unless everyone can accept it on neutral terms. You’re willing to live in a system where you can’t force people to live by your religion or ideology.
That’s the deal. If you’re in, you can join the consensus. If you’re out, if your worldview demands that you rule over everyone else, then you’re not a “reasonable” doctrine in Rawls’s sense.