Ahmed Khanani’s book is a most welcome contribution to the debate on religion and politics in what the author calls the “Third World” or, perhaps more accurately, “the periphery.” Although the relationship between Islam and democracy has been explored extensively in the past, Khanani provides an innovative take by examining the way in which Islamists think about and practice democracy through “ordinary language philosophy.” This approach allows the author to explore how the language and terminology used by ordinary voters and members of Islamist parties and movements shape the notion of democracy. In fact, the author rejects the very use of the terms “democracy” and “Islamists,” preferring instead the words dimuqratiya and Islamiyun to embed very clearly these terms in the locality within which they are used. This is done to ensure that the importance of language truly emerges by revealing the complexity of and adherence to the social and political reality within which it is shaped.

The approach the author takes is a clear departure from traditional discussions about democracy and Islam and their compatibility/incompatibility, which are often based on selective readings of religious texts or are derived from an equally biased selection of politicians’ or activists’ statements. It is also a clear departure from studies based on survey research, whose results tell us that Arab citizens are attached to and desire democracy, but often fail to delve into what kind of democracy they might want or how they define it. Through a thick description of the organizational structure and policy positions of Moroccan Islamists, the author examines the relationship between democracy and Islamists rather than Islam, moving away from the “moderation through inclusion” thesis. This approach is particularly useful because it allows the concept of democracy to be opened up and filled with the meanings that it takes in a specific local context.

The case study that Khanani uses to illustrate the relevance of language in discussing and shaping debates about democracy and Islamism is Morocco, where the Islamist Party for Justice and Development (PJD) and the Justice and Charity Movement operate, as well as a number of other Islamist movements. The scholarship on Moroccan Islamiyun is quite vast, ranging from the works of Eva Wegner to John Entelis to Mohammed Masbah and from Mohammed Daadaoui to Emanuela Dalmasso to Malika Zeghal; they analyze the organizational structures, ideology, and political positions of Moroccan Islamiyun, whether they are involved in institutional politics, social activism, or political violence. Khanani goes beyond what previous work about Moroccan Islamiyun has revealed to look at the way in which they practice and speak of dimuqratiya without resorting to the traditional way of separating religion and politics. Khanani, in fact, argues that in the Moroccan context and, by extension, the Arab one, politics and religion cannot be neatly separated; yet this lack of separation should not be seen as detrimental to democratic norms and practices. In “the West,” another concept Khanani uses for simplicity while being fully aware of its problematic nature, the prevalent idea that democracy and religion are and should be separate is almost unquestioned. The West then projects this concept onto other societies, where the separation might not only be more difficult but also possibly detrimental to democracy itself. The language Khanani examines allows us to see this problem.

All this is not necessarily a novel argument, and the way in which democracy should be contextualized is often discussed in the political science literature dealing with the non-Western world, such that it has become a rather standard argument in examining the different interpretations of and ways to practice democracy. Although the term “democracy” is thought of as both universal and good—so much so that all sort of authoritarian regimes and movements employ it as a positive concept—it has always taken on and reflected local meanings and understandings. In addition, it has also been an ever-evolving concept. The idea that there is one universal democratic standard and practice that are “naturally” Western and that others simply need to copy and paste in their setting never clearly applied and is no longer taken as seriously as it once was, at least in academia.

Khanani’s book, building on postcolonial theories and assumptions, offers an excellent analysis of how this understanding of democracy characterizes Moroccan Islamism and, to a large extent, Islamism more broadly across the region. The interviews carried out with Islamiyun across the Moroccan political spectrum, whether elected representatives or “simple” voters and ordinary party members, provide convincing empirical support for the author’s claims about the necessity and importance of examining the diversity and complexity of democratic discourse and practice and also contribute to the much larger debate about democracy that steers away from a narrow Western conception. Where the book truly excels is in making readers think more deeply about the “universal” value that democracy represents, as the author connects the “local”’ or marginal discourse and practice of democracy with its state in the Western world. Khanani highlights how Islamiyun in Morocco not only adapt the meaning and conceptualization of democracy to their own cultural and religious frameworks so that its practices make sense for locals but also how they actually contribute to reinvigorating it elsewhere—notably in the West where its concept has been demeaned and its practice has decreased. The universal referent for democracy has always been the West, and the marginalized postcolonial world has always had to measure up to that yardstick, but the current reality—and often the past one too—is that democracy in the West has not been able to live up to expectations. What the Islamiyun of Morocco indirectly “tell” Westerners about their democracy is that it needs to be reinvigorated to be meaningful and meet the expectations that citizens have.

There are two facets of democracy for which discussions among Islamists and Arab citizens more broadly can contribute to encouraging Western scholars and publics to rethink their supposedly democratic superiority. One is that democracy has to have both an internal and external dimension, suggesting therefore that so-called democratic states—the ubiquitous international community—need to pursue justice and equality not only within their borders but also outside them. The second is the socioeconomic dimension of democracy. Although the minimalist Schumpeterian conceptualization and practice of democracy have become dominant, this is not the case in much of what the author defines as the periphery, within which the relevance of socioeconomic rights is fully part of the concept of democracy. This does not mean that the delivery of greater socioeconomic equality or “success” is the only significant criterion of democracy, but it does connect the process of decision making to its outcomes, which have been part of debates about democracy in the West in the past as well, as Social Democrats would argue. Recent research has demonstrated that three aspects of democracy—procedures, political and civil rights, and socioeconomic rights—are inextricably linked and that privileging one or two to the detriment of the other or others is profoundly unsatisfactory. Moroccan Islamiyun remind us of this, and in the process, they not only attempt to reshape their society but also make Westerners aware of their shortcomings. We should thank Khanani for bringing this reality to our attention.