Arguably, the inability to build a forward-looking or modern political system has contributed greatly to the civilisational decline of Muslims. Currently, many Muslim countries remain authoritarian states devoid of transparency, rule of law, an independent judiciary, fully contested political pluralism, freedom of expression, press and the media, and an institutionalised separation of civilian and military rule as the latter continues to intervene in governmental decision-making and is unaccountable to elected civilian leaders. The democratic vacuum engenders despotism, fanaticism and misery, which today threaten the wider world. Indeed, Winston Churchill’s famous metaphor about dictators riding on tigers encapsulates the entire politics of significant swathes of the Muslim world. The tigers are a symbol for the people whom the dictators rule. The dictators use them as if they were beasts of burden. But unlike horses or mules, a tiger can kill and eat a human, so Churchill was saying that the oppressed people will rise up and overthrow the dictators. Hopes soared five years ago when a wave of unrest across the region led to the overthrow of four dictators — in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen — and to a clamour for change elsewhere, notably in Syria. But the Arab Spring’s fruit has rotted into renewed autocracy and war. Why key Muslim countries have so miserably failed to establish democracy, happiness or (aside from the windfall of oil) wealth for their people is one of the important questions of our time. What makes Muslim societies vulnerable to odious regimes and extremists bent on destroying them (and their perceived allies in the west)? Part of the answer certainly lies in the fact that the preconditions for democracy are lacking in the Muslim world. Monarchs, generals and clerics have stymied political evolution by emasculating the news media, suppressing intellectual inquiry, restricting artistic expression, banning political parties and co-opting regional, ethnic and religious organisations to silence dissenting voices. Moreover, existing feudalism, tribalism and traditionalism in Muslim societies tend to divide and destroy. These factors are major stumbling blocks to accommodating popular aspirations. Furthermore, regressive reinterpretations of Islam are at the core of some of the deep troubles in the Muslim world today. The claim, promoted by many of the leading lights in Islam, to combine spiritual and earthly authority, with no separation of mosque and state, has stunted the development of free political institutions. But the inadequacies of Muslim civil societies also have historical causes that transcend the policies of present dictators. Before the establishment of colonial regimes in the late 19th century, Muslim rulers enjoyed absolute power. With the connivance of pliant ulema (religious scholars), Muslim rulers hindered the development of autonomous and self-governing private organisations. Such a political setting prevented democratic institutions from taking root and ultimately facilitated the rise of current Muslim dictatorships. Many Muslim religious scholars and jurists refer to positive forms of democracy as Islamic democracy. On the other hand, they regard forms of irreligious or liberal ‘western’ democracy as evil ideologies, advising Muslims that they are religiously obliged to fight those kinds of secular principles and ideas. These scholars believe that, at the core of all kinds of racism, colonialism, communism and western capitalism, the dominant common ideological factor is anti-religious secularism. This spurious distinction between good and bad democracy serves as fodder for Muslim extremists in their relentless battle against ‘corrupt and hated’ western ideologies. The contempt for liberal democratic values is one more reason why Muslim countries have not yet succeeded in fostering the institutional prerequisites of democracy: the give-and-take of parliamentary discourse, protection for minorities, the emancipation of women, a free press, independent courts, universities and trade unions. Democracy requires checks and balances, and it is largely through civil society that citizens protect their rights as individuals, force policy makers to accommodate their interests and limit abuses of state authority. Civil society also promotes a culture of bargaining and gives future leaders the skills to articulate ideas, form coalitions and govern. Regrettably, Muslim civil society remains shallow by world standards. This chronic weakness of civil society suggests that viable Muslim democracies — or the leaders who could govern them — will not emerge anytime soon. A stronger civil society alone will not bring about democracy. But without a strong civil society, dictators will yield power except in the face of foreign intervention. Another significant challenge to the establishment of democratic institutions in the Muslim world is the unwillingness of western powers, particularly the US, to seriously confront the effects of supporting Muslim dictatorships that enforce stability at the cost of democracy. Ultimately, this support buys friendship with no one because supporting autocrats to repress radicalism largely serves only to empower those same radicals. One cannot subscribe to the suggestion that Muslims, as a people, lack talent or suffer from some pathological antipathy to democracy. Pluralism, education, open markets, these were once Muslim values and they could be so again. But the Muslim world has yet to make its tortuous transition from arbitrary rule by dictators to the democratic rule of law. Replacing authoritarian political structures with workable, democratic institutions will require commitment and sacrifice. The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com