Abstract
‘On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention', Tocqueville reports in Democracy in America. Even though religion cannot be considered formally as a part of the American political system, Tocqueville depicts it as the first American political institution because of its indirect effects on political life (Fradkin, 2000). Indeed, the role of religion constitutes one of the most central themes of his reflections on the issues and prospects of democracy. Thus, religion has always been a crucial question and theme in studying democracy especially in the Western world. Nevertheless, since 11 September 2001, the international spotlight has been more strongly focused than ever on the Muslim world particularly on the Middle East. The question of whether the culturalist thesis, elaborating that some religions are more compatible with democratic governance than others, has excited considerable and acute debates in recent years. This study aims primarily at showing that while no religious tradition is inherently and totally not suitable for democratic systems, the predominant practices and voices in specific religions may appear at precise times to be more or less willing to support democratic development. But, firstly, why did theorists of democracy find it natural and appropriate to examine whether one country or another was ‘fit for democracy' (Sen, 1999)? In this respect, important is to account for the framework of our study in explicating the complicated and vague notion of ‘democracy'. Indeed, what is democracy?
