ALTHOUGH it often seems like a chore, going through my fan mail and hate mail as it arrives daily via the Internet gives me an invaluable insight into readers' concerns.

The other day, a Pakistani expatriate wrote saying that a Syrian friend of his was of the view that for historic reasons, democracy was unsuitable for Muslims. And in support of his argument, he cited the case of Pakistan as a Muslim country that had been trying to make the system work for years with scant success. Despite several military interventions, an inordinate number of elections have been held, but the governments they produced have been largely incompetent and corrupt. As a result, they have rarely completed their term of office.

While my reader's friend may have indulged in a rather sweeping generalization, it is an unpleasant but undeniable fact that Muslim countries are, largely speaking, governed by one authoritarian model or another, ranging from monarchy to military dictatorship to one-party rule. In Algeria and Turkey, the army has intervened to keep Islamic groups out of power although they had won a popular mandate. In Indonesia, there is growing concern about a military coup.

In Pakistan, too, the US government has felt it necessary to voice its opposition to extra-constitutional methods to unseat the Nawaz Sharif government. In virtually the entire Islamic Crescent from Turkey to Indonesia, human rights are trampled under foot by ruling oligarchs and despots. It is tempting to assert that this condition prevails across the Third World, but the fact is that countries like India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and much of Latin America have, despite many problems, evolved working democratic systems. These may be flawed and far from perfect, but are nevertheless functioning and responding to the people's needs.

So what is it that has prevented democracy from taking root in Muslim countries? True, these countries have a long history of autocratic rule, but other nations have evolved from the same starting point to various stages of participatory government. Why is our environment so hostile to notions of human rights, equality and freedom? The lack of economic development cannot be cited as a valid reason as we have just observed that several underdeveloped countries have successfully made the transition from autocratic rule to democracy. Also, many oil-rich Islamic states have a high per capita income but are ruled by powerful monarchs.

There is one common thread running through Islamic societies, and that is the subordinate position of women. Although not all of them share the harsh fate of their Afghan sisters, it is an unfortunate fact that, by and large, Muslim women do not enjoy the same social, economic and political rights that women in the rest of the world do. Another common factor is the general lack of tolerance for other points of view that is so widely prevalent in much of the Muslim world. This is a prerequisite for democracy, and its absence could go a long way in explaining why we have generally failed in internalizing democratic norms and values.

Looking at successful democratic models, we note that without exception, they are all secular in outlook, having separated the church from the state at relatively early stages of their political development. In the case of Israel, the only state apart from Pakistan created in the name of religion, Jews and non-Jews vote together, whereas here Muslims and non-Muslims vote on the basis of separate electorates. Unfortunately, the difference does not stop here: Pakistani non-Muslims have been the targets of state-sanctioned persecution through controversial legislation that has drawn protests from human rights groups in and out of the country.

So does secularism hold the key to democracy? Clearly, this question and its answer has major implications for the entire Islamic world. But it is important to take note of the fact that secularism by itself is no guarantee of democracy: Iraq and Syria are both secular states, both have unenviable human rights records, and both are ruled by men who are re-elected periodically. Needless to say, neither is opposed in the polls as they lead one-party regimes.

Nevertheless, by de-linking religion from politics, successful democracies have managed to lower the temperature of political discourse. In Islamic countries attempting to take the democratic route, we have the widely observed phenomenon of religious parties substituting dogma for substance. Also, the introduction of faith in the hurly-burly of politics reduces the space for rational debate by reducing arguments to black and white.

In all religions, we accept certain tenets as articles of faith without subjecting them to the acid tests of logic and reason. Indeed, the fundamentals are not open to question. This acceptance of a truth higher than our comprehension is essential for the unquestioning belief that underpins universal adherence to various faiths that attract the devotion of hundreds of millions around the world. However, because of schisms within Christianity, together with the bloodshed they caused, European nations separated the Church from politics centuries ago. Partly as a result, the level of tolerance increased over time and came to be central to a democratic dispensation.

The Islamic world, too, has witnessed splits and schisms from a very early period. More blood has been shed in the name of faith than in any other cause. But because of our belief that Islam provides a complete way of life and does not govern only the spiritual sphere, most Muslim countries have enshrined the provisions of the faith in their legislation. However, as a result of the existence of different schools of jurisprudence within Islam, it is not always possible to accommodate all their divergent views. This is bound to create tensions and differences that erupt into open warfare from time to time.

Although the teaching of Islam urges believers to practise ijtihad to find answers to the challenges of our times, blind followers of dogma have so far prevented such an enlightened approach. The result is a total calcification of institutions and a paralysis of the spirit of inquiry. These factors have not only resulted in a uniform environment of repression, but in all-round economic, social and intellectual backwardness that has come to characterize much of the Muslim world.

If we are to leave this prison and take our rightful place in the comity of nations, we will have to break the shackles we have bound ourselves with.