By: Tashbih Sayyed
Only free men over the age of twenty enjoyed the rights of citizenship in 5th century Athens. Women and slaves, who made up 60% of the population along with the ÒimmigrantsÓ (decendents of families who had come here to settle in the city state many generations ago) were neither allowed to participate in the decision making process nor to hold public office. But in the eyes of Plato, even this restricted citizenship was unfit too broad. That's why when Athens gave expanded legislative power to its citizens, Plato disapproved.
Plato's decision to indict democracy was based on his belief that people had Òneither the inclination nor the training to run their lives.' Today there are many people who say the same thing when it comes to introducing democratic principles in third world countries, particularly Muslim nations. This is because a necessary precursor is missing, namely, the inclination for wanting to do something as a result of understanding the virtues of a particular act or course of actions. So the question is then raised, 'Do people in predominantly Muslim countries understand the benefits of democracy enough to want to implemenet its institutions?' Arguably, no. Rather, people in Muslim countries have been indoctrinated against the Western system of democracy. As a matter of faith, for a dogmatic Muslim, Western Democracy amounts to the rejection of God's sovereignty. To them, all authority belongs to God and man has no right to legislate anew. That's why there is a great degree of skepticism regarding the success of Presidents Bush's demand that the Palestinians adopt democratic reforms that could produce an independent Palestinian state within three years.
President Bush says that a Palestinian state will be built through substantive, not cosmetic reforms or a veiled attempt to preserve the status quo. Most parties agree. They also endorse the idea that true reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions based on democratic principles, market economics and the elimination of terrorism. But they wonder if all these changes can be achieved in the prescribed period of three years. In order to be able to establish such an environment, there has to be created a need in the minds of the people. It does not, though, that Muslims are ready to implement a true democracy.
Democracy is a state of mind. It can not be imposed on a people who neither feel a need nor necessity for such a change. Unwilling or unprepared minds cannot be entrusted with the powers of democracy. And such a state of mind cannot evolve overnight or for that matter in three years. It takes ages of honest and sincere effort. If President Bush finds in Palestinian society, today, a legislature that has no authority, or if he observes that power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few, he is not discovering anything new or strange. Muslim societies are historically known for these shortcomings and they are used to such a way of life.
In countries where free thinking has been systematically stifled, it is nearly impossible for an individual subject to appreciate the power of his or her vote. The ballot box will always be misused and abused by the corrupt to legitimize their undemocratic governments. In such a situation, many experts believe that, democracy can be 'not only risky but disastrous.Ó George Soros, in one of his essays points out the risk of empowering people who are neither trained nor prepared to take charge of their lives, stating, 'Democracies do not always make societies more civilÑbut they do always mercilessly expose the health of the societies in which they operate.' He gives the example of Germany and Italy where both Adolph Hitler and Mussolini came to power through democracy.
Moreover, in Sudan, Soros contends, an elected democracy led immediately to anarchy, which in turn led to the most brutal tyranny in Sudan's postcolonial history. 'A military regime that broadened the scope of executions, persecuted women, starved non-Muslims to death, sold kidnapped non-Muslim children back to their parents for $200, and made Khartoum the terrorism capital of the Arab world, replacing Beirut.' Giving reasons for such a debacle he says that in 1985, only 27 percent of the population (and only 12 percent of the women) could read. Òif a society is not in reasonable health, democracy can be not only risky but disastrous: during the last phases of the post-First World War German and Italian democracies, for example, the unemployment and inflation figures for Germany and the amount of civil unrest in Italy were just as abysmal as SudanÕs literacy rates.'
In a society where unemployment is high, education is low, people are poor and basic human emenities are lacking, elections will surely bring into power extremists, fundamentalists and redicals just like it happened in Algeria. First create an economy, experts insist, then worry about elections. According to Soros, in Kurdistan and Afghanistan, two fragile tribal societies in which the United States encouraged versions of democracy in the 1990s, the security vacuums that followed the failed attempts at institutionalizing pluralism were filled by Saddam Hussein for a time in Kurdistan and by Islamic tyranny in much of Afghanistan. It is a common experience that in the under developed world, unless the middle classes are enlarged and institutions modernized, the wave of democratization will not be consolidated.
BushÕs demand that the Palestinians replace Yasser Arafat, is also drawing the criticism of political analysts and many Middle East watchers. Yasser Arafat, they say, is the choice of the PalestinianÕs and he represents the popular Palestinian mind. In fact, many are ready to bet that the Palestinians are more radical than Yasser Arafat himself. That's why, Yasser Arafat's replacement is not going to change anything. In other words, people, not only in Palestine but everywhere in the Muslim world are not ready to take charge of their affairs. True democracy, that has worked wonders for the people of the Western countries cannot work in the Muslim societies, as these societies suffer from a number of social and cultural ailments. Mohamed Elhachmi Hamdi, founder and editor-in-chief of the Arabic-language newspaper Al Mustakillah and the English and Arabic quarterly, The Diplomat, who was a member of the Tunisian Islamic movement al-Nahda for more than ten years before his resignation in 1992, says, 'Not all societies stand to benefit from a multiparty system, for in some circumstances such pluralism might only serve to deepen existing tribal or sectarian divisions. It is also questionable whether the rule of 51 percent is a workable solution for many African and Asian societies, which need the efforts of all political groups, not only the one that gains victory in an election.'
Such a state of affairs is more than evident in today's Afghanistan. The murders, first of the tourist minister and now of the Vice President Haji Qadir do underline the built in ethinic and tribal fault lines which will continue to jolt the foreign imposed democracy. Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks cannot be mixed together to achieve a democratic society. In Palestine, Al-Fatah, HAMAS, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad represent divergent points of view, who have joined hands only to defeat a common enemy - Judaism/Zionism and the US. As soon as they achieve this objective they will revert to their centuries old secterian and factional feuds. Unless a determined and long- term effort is made to change the mind, there can never be a soul inclined to adopt democratic principles on his or her own.
Although Islam teaches principles of freedom, human dignity, equality, governance by contract, popular sovereignty, and the rule of law, a look at history suggests that Muslim societies have been working under a deeply rooted authoritarian political culture, and manipulated interpretations of the holy book -the QuraaÕn, which has resulted in centuries of misguided indoctrination against modernization by a dogmatic clergy and a life under selfish and corrupt regimes. This authoritarian political culture and wide spread manipulation of interpretation of scriptures has resulted in the stagnation of social, cultural and economic institutions, pushing people into an abyss of ignorance and poverty and making them easy prey to extremist ideas. In such an environment, if a free and fair election is held, only an extremist or fundamentalist will be voted into power as he will be the true representative of the popular will reflecting the misguided thinking of the main street.
Ignorance, poverty and extremism have flourished in Muslim societies because there has never been an honest and sincere effort to affect intellectual, social and cultural reformation at the grass root level. Muslim societies are the only societies in the history of civilization which refuse to move forward and embrace progress despite possessing a book (QuraaÕn) that teaches nothing but the most exalted human values of pursuing knowledge, practicing equality, establishing democracy, allowing pluralism, and modernization. It has underlined, stressed and reminded the reader at every corner the divine principle of retribution, asking Muslims to remain transparent in their affairs that affect the health of the state, society and the common man. To ensure that a just society is in place it makes it a duty to put in place a system of check and balances. Instead, after the death of the prophet, a culture of dogmatism was not only encouraged, but ensured the resurrection of archaic values that the Prophet fought during his lifetime.
Laith Kubba, director of the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue in London, who was an organizer of the Iraqi National Congress, founded in 1992 in Vienna, Austria, writes, 'From earliest times, tribalism has marked Muslim political life. Later there came a chronic tendency to underappreciate constitutional and representative governance, and a consequent difficulty in developing democratic institutions and safeguards such as checks and balances. Historically, Muslims neither participated in choosing their rulers nor had a right to representation in government. Groups or individuals who seized power by force seldom met much in the way of popular resistance. This political passivity has its roots in religious teachings, and has gone far to perpetuate the tradition of authoritarian government in the Islamic world.'
Moreover, after the death of the Prophet, Muslim society came under control of self interested leaders, who manipulated the holy book and the life of the prophet. The Caliphs and Kings using the pulpits of the mosques to condemn and persecute those who opposed them and established a tradition of using the Quraa'n to legitimize their sins and misdeeds. In the words of one Islamic scholar, 'Although Muslims believe that the Quraa'n is the only source of divine revelation, history has witnessed Muslims differing among themselves on questions of who rightly possesses authority, meaning both the right to interpret Islam and the right to rule other Muslims. The first generation of Muslims did not agree on a single procedure for electing a caliph, which led to violent takeovers and internal wars.' As a result age old tribal and ethnic divisions in Muslim societies were not only consolidated but multiplied. Tribal loyalties and ethnic affinities, instead of the principles of equality and justice, became the reasons to live, making it impossible for a democratic system to take root.
But times are changing. There are individuals in Muslim societies who are determined to change the rule of darkness. They are no longer afraid of the extremist clergy and the pack of Islamists who have traditionally controlled the mosques, madrasas and other arenas of mental manipulation. Satellite transmissions, e-communications and the coming closer of different societies representing different faiths and philosophies, irrespective of their level of progress and development, as a result of globalization, has worked wonders in opening up of new vistas in front of these individuals who want to eradicate the scourge of exploitation of scripture and other religious faculties.
Today, the dogmatic cleric in Muslim societies cannot hide the benefits of social, cultural, economic and industrial progress made in democratic countries. Muslims today are interacting with each other and with people of other backgrounds, faiths and ethnicities. Muslims are now finding themselves asking hundreds of questions regarding the validity of teachings that contradict common sense. Muslims are finding that they are wiser and more educated than ever before. They are realizing that the teachings of Islam, without clerical manipulation, are necessary for personal and communal identity. But that they have been victimized by narrowed interpretations that have less to do with the essence of the sprit of Islam but more with historical accidents and parochial circumstances. Gradually but surely, the typical man on the street in Muslim societies is realizing that his salvation lies in a society that promotes the values of democracy, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by establishing a pluralistic society. He is gradually accepting the fact that 'Islamic values have great potential to contribute to the overall development of the Muslim world, but only if they can be cultivated in ways that do not undermine prospects for democracy.'
In order to help and assist this new generation of reformists, we have to, for some time, control our urge to impose western democracies on societies where the common man is brain-washed into hating civilized values. Only terrorists will be elected when the vote is given to extremists. This borrowed time should be used to help leaders like General Pervez Musharraf to ensure that the religious institutions are freed from Islamists, and a curriculum is written and taught that prepares minds and souls to want a modern, pluralistic and free society. Unless such a freedom loving mind is evolved, true democracy will be counter productive and lethal for humanity.
The traditional ruler, Islamist and dogmatic cleric are aware of the threat posed by individuals seeking to reform Muslim societies. He knows that he can no longer keep the masses in darkness. He is aware that he can no longer keep the doors of true education and enlightenment closed on the common man. He is convinced that the reformers have to be silenced and their supporters have to be destroyed. So he has intensified his efforts to add to the venom of manipulated scriptures and Muslim history. Every conflict is being presented as a continuation of the crusades and perceived Jewish conspiracies against the prophet of Islam and Islam itself. It is a matter of faith for these hate filled minds to destroy Western civilization before it destroys them.
Now the civilized world has to realize that the fanatics in the Muslim world can only be defeated from within. The reformist mind has to be allowed to work as an anti-body to arrest the terrorist mentality that is essentially alien to the Islamic body. It seems that the world is waking up to this realization. It is encouraging that although, almost all the Muslim societies are in the grip of an extremist and dogmatic mind that spews radicalism and terror, new possibilities are making their availabilty felt to challenge the Muslim clerical institutions that abhore progress and are anti-modernism. Laith Kubba says, 'Today, Islam is interpreted by theological schools that have a limited role in running public institutions. Since these schools are apolitical by tradition, the interpretation of the political aspects of Islam has recently been claimed by combinations of activist clerics and political groups. Recent attempts by religious leaders or Islamic parties to implement Islam in public life have produced dismal results.
These failures, in turn, have sparked debate among reformist Muslims about the possibility of interpreting Islamic values in ways compatible with democracy, human rights, and political pluralism. This debate was long overdue, for it was the absence of genuine scholarly discourse concerning the relationship between Islam and democratic politics that gave the most vocal and politicized groups a free hand to interpret the political and social dimensions of Islam in ways that served their own political agendas--a phenomenon seen most prominently in Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan, Egypt, and the Sudan.'
Let the reformation of Muslim societies become a matter of faith before democracy in the hands of the undemocratic is abused to destroy freedom.
