Indeed, some writers even see a kind of postmodernism in fundamentalism.
Brown speaks of it as a ‘foundationalism without a grand narrative’ (1995: 35). In
other words, fundamentalism combines cosmopolitan relativism (Muslims are
different) – hence there are no ‘grand narratives’ that many postmodernists say they
dislike – with a dogmatic belief in rightness and wrongness – hence
‘foundationalism’. Falk argues, for example, that politicised religion is a form of
postmodern protest against the mechanisation, atomisation and alienation of the
modern world (cited by Wolff, 1998: 50). We would see postmodernism as a critique
of modernism that goes beyond it, rather than as an anti-liberalism that rejects
democracy, the Enlightenment and universal promise. It is, therefore, better to speak
of fundamentalism as an anti-modernism, rather than a postmodernism.
It is the deficiencies of modernity that produce fundamentalism. It has been said
that the question of fundamentalism cannot be dissociated from the process of
nation- and state-building and its failures. A fundamentalist is someone who has
become conscious of the acute inequalities within and between countries, but who
is also convinced that the current strategies of development will not succeed in
alleviating them. Fundamentalism has developed in a situation where the state failed
to provide the newly urbanised citizens with structures to replace the old communal
ones. The alienated individual projects his frustrations on a world scale, seeking to
create a community of believers who share a similar Weltanschauungen(world
outlook) (Zoubir, 1998: 127, 131–2).
It does not follow that because fundamentalism is a kind of modernist reaction
against modernity, we defend modernity. On the contrary, it is (as already noted)
the failures of modernity that have created such an extreme and negative reaction.
We are certainly not implying that liberalism or modernity itself is a desirable and
natural norm.Fundamentalism, democracy and violence
The refusal of dialogue makes fundamentalism dangerous, for increasingly the use
of violence is counterproductive and the only way of advancing humanity’s interests
is through argument and debate (see Chapter 1). By rejecting democracy, fundamen-
talism necessarily leads to violence.
(Abstract) ethics, not democracy, is the watchword, and the value expected in
the political domain is not liberty, but justice (Roy, 1999: 10–11). Choueiri, in his
analysis of Islamic fundamentalism, comments that democracy is seen as a violation
of God’s sovereignty – the desires and opinions of secular majorities represent an
outright usurpation of God’s laws. Choueiri notes that in fundamentalist eyes,
humanity has reverted to an age of ignorance. Some movements support democracy
simply as a means to a non-democratic end (Choueiri, 1996: 20–1). As Ali Belhaj,
star preacher for the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, has put it, democracy is no
more than a corruption or ignorance which robs God of his power and seeks to
bestow this power upon his creatures (Kepel, 1994: 46).
Is it true that all forms of fundamentalism reject democracy? Kepel argues that
the various movements of re-Christianisation cannot reject democracy as an alien
graft on their own system: they have to speak the language of democracy and thisChapter 17 Fundamentalism 385