Introduction
The rapid transformations of the Middle East in recent decades—from the erosion of the legitimacy of ideological regimes to the decline of Islamist discourse—have once again directed thinkers’ attention to the role of rationality in politics. In such a context, The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya acquires significance not only as a historical contribution but also as an analytical framework for understanding the current impasses of politics in the Middle East. Zakariyya was among those thinkers who, well before the present crises became fully apparent, offered a coherent and reasoned critique of the structural limitations of ideological politics and religious governance.
Fouad Zakariyya, the Egyptian philosopher and intellectual, sought in his works to liberate politics from the dominance of myth, emotional mobilization, and sacralization, and to reconstruct it on the foundations of critical rationality. His importance lies not merely in his opposition to Islamism, but in his philosophical analysis of how transforming religion into a political ideology leads to the erosion of legitimacy, the blockage of collective reason, and an incapacity for modern governance. From this perspective, Zakariyya’s critique is directed at the “political function of religion,” not at religious faith itself.
What makes The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya particularly salient today is the simultaneity of his analyses with the conditions the Middle East experiences in the age of globalization: increasing economic complexity, the expansion of communications, demands for state effectiveness, and the declining appeal of ideologically mobilizing discourses. Zakariyya demonstrates that modern politics is inevitably in need of institutional rationality, political secularism, and the acceptance of social pluralism—elements that Islamist projects, for internal reasons, have proven unable to realize in a sustainable manner.
By focusing on The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya, this article seeks to show how his critiques of Islamism and religious government constitute not a situational reaction, but a structural analysis of the impasse of ideological politics in the Middle East. In what follows, through an examination of the historical background, the foundations of critical rationality, the concept of secularism, and Zakariyya’s implicit predictions regarding crises of legitimacy, an effort is made to clarify his position as a forward-looking thinker in contemporary Middle Eastern politics.
The Historical and Intellectual Context of the Formation of The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya
To gain an accurate understanding of The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya, it must be situated within the historical and intellectual context of the Middle East in the second half of the twentieth century—a period in which politics in the region was broadly dominated by grand ideologies and emancipatory projects. These ideologies—from Arab nationalism and state socialism to Islamism—all promised the reconstruction of identity, political independence, and social justice, yet in practice confronted profound crises of legitimacy and effectiveness.
Following the collapse of the colonial order, the newly established states of the Middle East faced the simultaneous challenges of state-building, economic development, and social cohesion. Under these conditions, ideology became a tool for mass mobilization and for filling the vacuum of legitimacy. Arab nationalism, especially in the form of charismatic regimes, reduced politics to a realm of slogans, historical myth-making, and emotional mobilization. Military defeats—most notably the defeat of 1967—not only exposed the failure of these projects, but also prepared the ground for the emergence of Islamism as an ideological alternative.
Islamism in this period presented itself as a moral and identity-based response to the failures of secular and nationalist states. From Zakariyya’s perspective, however, this ideological shift did not alter the fundamental logic of politics. Politics continued to be organized around absolute truth, the negation of pluralism, and the primacy of ideology over institutional rationality. What had changed was the “content of ideology,” not the “structure of political thought.”
In such an environment, Fouad Zakariyya, as a philosophical intellectual rather than a political ideologue, chose a different path. Instead of offering a new version of an emancipatory ideology, he called into question the very logic of ideological domination. Zakariyya viewed Middle Eastern politics not as a victim of a lack of faith or identity, but as being trapped by the absence of critical rationality. In his view, the core crisis lay in these societies’ inability to distinguish between faith, identity, and the rational mechanisms of governance.
This historical context clarifies the point of departure of The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya. His critique of Islamism, secularism, or the religious state was not an emotional reaction to a particular current, but the result of a philosophical reflection on the successive failures of ideological politics in the Middle East. For this reason, his thought possesses a transhistorical dimension and can once again be reread as a tool for understanding the region’s current transformations—under conditions marked by the decline of mobilizing ideologies and the pressures of globalization.
Critical Rationality: The Foundation of The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya
At the center of The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya lies a concept that can be described as “critical rationality”—a rationality that is not merely an instrument of calculation, but a mode of living and practicing politics in the modern world. Zakariyya believed that the crisis of politics in the Middle East was, before being a crisis of institutions or resources, a crisis of modes of thinking. In his view, politics reaches an impasse when reason gives way to myth, collective emotion, and truths immune from criticism.
Rationality in Zakariyya’s conception means accepting the principle of the fallibility of human thought. No ideology, tradition, or religious interpretation should place itself beyond questioning and critique. This principle has clear political implications: power that becomes immune to criticism inevitably leads to despotism. For this reason, Zakariyya established a fundamental connection between rationality and political freedom, regarding the absence of one as a sign of the weakening of the other.
Zakariyya juxtaposed critical rationality with what he called “mythical thinking.” In his view, a large portion of political discourse in the Middle East—whether in the form of nationalism or Islamism—has been based on the reproduction of salvationist myths: the myth of a return to a golden past, the myth of a savior leader, or the myth of a single truth capable of resolving all problems. While these myths possess strong mobilizing power, they are incapable of producing rational and sustainable politics.
In The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya, rationality is a necessary condition of modern politics, but not a sufficient one. Reason must be embodied in institutions, laws, and stable procedures. Zakariyya repeatedly emphasized that without the institutionalization of rationality—through the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the education of critical thinking—politics is reduced to the realm of arbitrary decisions and personal authority. This critique is directed both at secular authoritarian states and at projects of religious governance.
A crucial point in Zakariyya’s approach is that he does not place critical rationality in opposition to religion, but rather in opposition to the “ideologization of religion.” From his perspective, religious faith can be part of the individual and ethical experience of human beings, but when it becomes a tool of political legitimacy, it inevitably marginalizes rationality. This distinction forms the theoretical basis of many of his critiques of Islamism and the religious state.
Ultimately, critical rationality in The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya is not an abstract philosophical stance, but a strategy for overcoming the impasse of ideological politics. He considered the future of Middle Eastern politics possible only if it distanced itself from the logic of absolute truths and moved toward dialogue, empiricism, and reformability. This understanding of rationality provides the groundwork for his views on secularism, democracy, and the decline of ideological projects in the region.
Secularism as a Condition of Modern Political Practice in The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya
Secularism in The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya is not an aggressive ideological stance, but rather the logical outcome of critical rationality in politics. Zakariyya defines secularism not as the negation of religion, but as an institutional framework for governing a pluralistic society—one in which religious, moral, and cultural beliefs are diverse, and none can legitimately exercise political domination over the others.
From Zakariyya’s perspective, the central issue in modern politics is the “management of disagreement.” In societies where religion becomes a source of political legitimacy, disagreements cease to be solvable through dialogue and negotiation and instead turn into existential conflicts. This is because political opposition, within such a framework, is easily interpreted as opposition to religious truth or divine will. Political secularism, in Zakariyya’s view, is precisely necessary to prevent such blockages in politics.
Zakariyya emphasizes the distinction between philosophical secularism and political secularism. Political secularism means the separation of religious institutions from institutions of power, not the removal of religion from the public sphere or from individual experience. He argues that a secular state is not an enemy of faith, but rather the guarantor of freedom of belief; for only a state that considers itself neutral can protect the equal rights of all citizens, regardless of their convictions.
In The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya, secularism is also a precondition for the formation of the modern state. The modern state operates on the basis of general law, equal citizenship, and institutional rationality. By contrast, the religious state inevitably leads to structural discrimination, because it derives its legitimacy from a source beyond the will of citizens. Zakariyya argues that this gap between religious legitimacy and political legitimacy ultimately results in a crisis of governance—a crisis that is answered either through continuous repression or through the collapse of public trust.
A central point in Zakariyya’s analysis is that secularism is not a “cultural import,” but a necessity arising from the complexity of contemporary societies. Globalization, the expansion of education, social mobility, and the diversity of lifestyles have eliminated the possibility of imposing a single interpretation of truth. Therefore, rational political practice in the Middle East, in his view, must inevitably draw upon secular frameworks, even if its cultural language remains indigenous and religious.
Thus, secularism in The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya is not an ultimate goal, but a tool for preserving rationality, freedom, and the possibility of coexistence in politics. This understanding lays the groundwork for his profound critique of Islamism and the religious state—a critique that demonstrates why political projects based on religion, in the modern world, are confronted with crises of legitimacy and effectiveness.
The Critique of Islamism: From an Emancipatory Ideology to a Historical Impasse
The critique of Islamism is one of the most central dimensions of The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya—a critique formulated not from a position of hostility toward religion, but from the perspective of analyzing ideology and the function of power. Zakariyya regards Islamism as an inherently modern phenomenon: a movement that emerged in response to the failure of nationalist and secular states in the Middle East and sought to employ religion as an alternative source of political legitimacy and social mobilization.
According to Zakariyya, in its initial phase Islamism succeeded in filling the moral and meaningful vacuum created after the collapse of the ideological projects of the twentieth century. By promising a return to “authenticity,” justice, and moral governance, this movement gained broad social appeal. Yet it is precisely here, in Zakariyya’s view, that the starting point of the crisis is located: Islamism transformed religion from an ethical and historical experience into a closed, truth-centered ideology that claims to provide definitive answers to all political, legal, and social questions.
In Zakariyya’s analysis, the ideologization of religion has specific consequences. First, politics becomes a non-criticizable domain, because political decisions are linked to a transcendent will. Second, social pluralism—whether religious, intellectual, or cultural—turns into a threat to “truth,” rather than a reality that must be managed. The outcome of this process, in his view, is the inevitable tendency of Islamism toward exclusion, authoritarianism, and ultimately symbolic or actual violence.
Fouad Zakariyya emphasizes that the problem of Islamism lies not in its initial moral intentions, but in its structural inability to move from the stage of mobilization to the stage of governance. Islamist movements may offer an ethical and protest-oriented discourse when operating as opposition, but when confronted with the realities of the modern state—from complex economies and citizenship rights to international relations—they either retreat from their promises or resort to ideological imposition. Both paths lead to the erosion of legitimacy.
Within the framework of The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya, this impasse is not merely historical or accidental, but the logical consequence of the fusion of religion and power. He shows that religious legitimacy, unlike political legitimacy, is consumable in nature: every failure of governance places not only the state, but the sacred itself, under question. Thus, by entering the sphere of power, Islamism gradually loses its symbolic capital.
This analysis makes it possible to understand the gradual decline of Islamism without the need for explicit predictions. By explicating the internal logic of this movement, Zakariyya demonstrates why Islamism, as a project for political practice in the modern world, faces structural limitations—limitations that become increasingly evident under conditions of globalization, the intensification of the complexities of governance, and the rising demands of citizenship.
Implicit Predictions of Fouad Zakariyya and Their Realization in Recent Middle Eastern Developments
Although Fouad Zakariyya did not explicitly predict the precise timing of the decline of Islamism, his structural analyses of the limitations of religious ideology and religious governance contain implicit predictions that recent developments in the Middle East have confirmed. Zakariyya demonstrates that any political project based on religion, once confronted with the complexities of the modern state, social diversity, and the need for effectiveness, will inevitably face a crisis of legitimacy. This analysis corresponds closely with events of recent decades in various countries of the region, from Egypt and Tunisia to Turkey and the Gulf states.
One of Zakariyya’s most significant implicit predictions concerns the erosion of the legitimizing power of Islamism after attaining governmental authority. The experiences of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule in Egypt and the Ennahda Party in Tunisia showed that promises of justice, morality, and religious identity become ineffective when confronted with the executive necessities of the modern state. This is precisely the point Zakariyya had analyzed prior to these developments: religious legitimacy, unlike political legitimacy based on law and institutions, is a consumable form of capital and rapidly dissipates in the face of inefficiency.
Regional developments also indicate that Islamist movements have lost their mobilizing power with the growth of social diversity and the pressures generated by globalization. Rational, secular, and citizenship-based discourses have gradually replaced the ideological appeal of Islamism in many societies. These changes clearly demonstrate the correspondence between Zakariyya’s predictions and contemporary realities, showing that his analysis was not a reaction to momentary circumstances, but a deduction from the internal logic of projects of religious governance.
From Zakariyya’s perspective, the decline of Islamism and the erosion of the legitimacy of religious government create new opportunities for modern politics in the Middle East. These opportunities include the possibility of developing rational institutions, strengthening civil society, and adopting political secularism as a tool for managing social disagreements. In other words, rereading Zakariyya’s thought enables us to transform the experience of the failure of ideological projects into an experience of rational and adaptive political practice in the age of globalization.
Ultimately, Zakariyya’s implicit predictions regarding the limitations of Islamism and religious governance provide not merely an analysis of the past, but a guiding light for future political practice in the Middle East. He showed that only through rationality, secularism, and the acceptance of social diversity can a sustainable and legitimate politics be achieved—one compatible with the complexities of the age of globalization.
Democracy, Freedom, and Post-Ideological Politics
In The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya, democracy goes beyond being a mere electoral mechanism and is defined as a rational and institutional culture that enables dialogue, critique, and accountability. Zakariyya emphasizes that in transitional societies—especially in the Middle East—moving beyond ideological politics is possible only through the institutionalization of civil liberties, equal citizenship, and rational participation.
One of the key components of democracy in Zakariyya’s view is freedom of expression and the freedom to criticize power. He believed that without the possibility of criticism and rational examination of political decisions, society falls into ideological despotism and intellectual stagnation. The experience of religious or ideological governments shows that restrictions on freedom of expression not only diminish political legitimacy, but also undermine the capacity to resolve social problems.
Zakariyya also stresses the role of civil society and reflective elites. In his view, post-ideological politics requires individuals capable of maintaining a balance between ethical values, religious beliefs, and the necessities of modern governance. An active and informed civil society provides the necessary foundation for dialogue and the moderation of power, preventing centralization and authoritarianism.
Within this framework, democracy as a path of rational politics is intertwined with secularism and critical rationality. Institutionalized secularism guarantees citizens’ freedom of action, while critical rationality enables decision-making based on experience, evidence, and reformability. Thus, post-ideological politics is a form of politics no longer dependent on absolute promises or salvationist myths, but grounded in the capacities of institutions, legal rules, and dialogue with citizens.
Zakariyya believed that only through this path could societies escape the cycle of failure associated with ideological projects and religious governance and establish a sustainable, legitimate, and rational politics in the Middle East. This perspective places him among the most prominent thinkers engaged in rethinking modern politics and democracy in the Arab world.
Revisiting The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya in the Age of Globalization
In light of the rapid economic, social, and technological transformations of the contemporary world, revisiting The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya in the age of globalization acquires particular importance. Zakariyya had previously shown that ideological projects—whether nationalist or religious—cannot lead to sustainable and rational politics in complex modern societies. These analyses appear once again valid in the age of globalization, when societies face intersecting domestic and international pressures, cultural diversity, and the need for effective governance.
One of the consequences of globalization is the increasing social and economic complexity that renders projects based on absolute truths ineffective. Expansive communications, the free flow of information, and diverse lifestyles have eliminated the possibility of imposing a single ideological discourse. Under such conditions, successful political practice can proceed only through rationality, secularism, and the acceptance of social pluralism—the very framework that Zakariyya had argued for in a reasoned and systematic manner.
Revisiting Zakariyya in this era also highlights the importance of institutions and legality. He demonstrated that critical rationality must be embodied in reliable institutions and stable laws. Without such institutions, even freedom and democracy become vulnerable, and politics may once again revert to cycles of authoritarianism and slogan-driven mobilization.
From a comparative political perspective, rereading Zakariyya’s thought provides an opportunity to analyze the failed experiences of Islamist and nationalist projects and to offer rational strategies for political practice in the Middle East. These strategies include strengthening civil society, guaranteeing civil liberties, educating critical thinking, and separating religious institutions from institutions of power. In this sense, Zakariyya’s thought forms a bridge between the historical analysis of ideological crisis and the design of modern politics for the region’s future.
Accordingly, revisiting The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya in the age of globalization not only offers a clearer understanding of the decline of Islamism and the limitations of religious governance, but also provides a rational framework for adaptive and sustainable political practice in the contemporary Middle East. This rereading demonstrates that moving beyond ideological politics and advancing toward institutional, legitimate, and rational politics is an unavoidable necessity for the region.
Conclusion
The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya places critical rationality, secularism, and a structural analysis of ideological crises at its core. Zakariyya demonstrated that projects based on religion or mobilizing ideologies, regardless of their social appeal, encounter impasse and erosion of legitimacy when confronted with the complexities of the modern state, social diversity, and the requirements of globalization. In recent decades, these analyses have aligned closely with developments in the Middle East, confirming his implicit predictions regarding the limitations of Islamism.
Fouad Zakariyya shows that modern and sustainable politics is possible only through institutional rationality, political secularism, and the acceptance of social pluralism. Freedom of expression, an active civil society, law-governed institutions, and the education of critical thinking are inseparable components of this path. Revisiting his thought enables not only an understanding of past and present crises, but also the articulation of a rational framework for future political practice in the Middle East.
In other words, The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya shows politicians and researchers alike that the decline of Islamism and the failure of religious governments constitute an opportunity to design a rational, legitimate, and adaptive politics. By focusing on the internal logic of ideological and legitimacy crises, Zakariyya offers a clear model for politics in the age of globalization—a politics grounded not in absolute promises, but in experience, dialogue, rationality, and sustainable institution-building.
In conclusion, revisiting The Political Thought of Fouad Zakariyya not only enriches the study of political history and philosophy in the Middle East but also illuminates the path toward modern and post-ideological politics for today’s scholars and decision-makers.
