The idea
The text indicates that post-independence regimes did not achieve stable political or intellectual pluralism; rather, in many cases, they moved toward a one-party state and a single thought. In this context, Islam was used as a basis for legitimacy. The point here is that the political sphere narrowed, and pluralism became a threat rather than a natural element of public life.
Concise formulation
Post-independence regimes: turning into a one-party state and a single thought
Its place in the book’s argument
This observation comes within a critique of the relationship between power and meaning, not as a passing political description. The book links the state’s monopolization of discourse to the stifling of public debate, and shows how religion is invoked to consolidate authority rather than open space for society. The idea therefore serves the argument that manufactured legitimacy weakens free understanding.
Why it matters
This idea matters because it reveals how religion can shift from a spiritual and ethical domain into a tool of political justification. It helps explain part of Arkoun’s critique of modern structures in the Arab world, where independence does not always mean freedom in thought. It also illuminates the relationship between power and language, and between governance and the meaning of legitimacy.
Brief evidence
turned into a one-party state and a single thought turned into a one-party state and a single thought, and Islam was used as a basis for legitimacy
Reading questions
- How does religion become a basis for political legitimacy in one-party regimes?
- What does society lose when pluralism is replaced by a single thought?
Degree of documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.