|
*
Moderate Islamists and peaceful democracy
Levant News,
December 12, 2007
By Louay Abdulbaki
It has become
widely acknowledged that political exclusion and oppression
fosters extremism, whereas democratic participation
encourages moderation and compromise. While the former is
evident in the experiences of many Islamic groups with
authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, the latter can be
observed through the political stances of Islamic political
parties in post-Suharto Indonesia.
Can we have an
Indonesian kind of inclusive Muslim democracy in the Middle
East?
One of the most
contentious issues in relation to the promotion of democracy
is whether or not the political process in newly emerging
democracies should be unreservedly open to all political
forces for free and fair contestation. Should
"un-democratic" forces, for example, be isolated and
suppressed in order for the democratisation process to
proceed steadily? Although there is some logic in this
argument, in actuality it only provides autocratic rulers
with the justification to hamper democratic reform and
curtail civil liberties.
Many Western
governments that have prioritised the promotion of democracy
in their foreign agenda, particularly the current US
administration, often join human rights organisations in
criticising human rights violations and undemocratic
elections in authoritarian states. However, when it comes to
the repression and persecution of Islamic political
movements and activists, Western governments’ criticism of
these regimes tends to be very quiet and gentle.
The reluctance
and inconsistency of many Western and international players
in their promotion of democracy in Muslim countries is
largely due to recent rise of Islamist electoral gains and
popularity in some Muslim countries. Egypt is a notable
example, where the Muslim Brotherhood achieved an
unprecedented success in the 2005 legislative elections
winning 88 seats in parliament (20 per cent of total seats).
These concerns are indeed exaggerated and skillfully
exploited by authoritarian regimes that still rely on US
support to perpetuate the status quo.
It would be
very short sighted to think that the exclusion and
suppression of Islamic political actors would weaken their
social and popular support. While this may temporary weaken
the political influence of the moderate Islamists who adopt
peaceful democratic means, it only strengthens violent
groups and fosters underground activism, which appears as
the only viable alternative to open and transparent action
on the face of uncompromising despots.
Western support
of authoritarian rulers, especially with regards to US’s
alliances with the so-called "moderate regimes" in the
Middle East, sends a wrong message to the people in these
countries. This is one of the reasons why the West has been
increasingly associated in the eyes of the oppressed with
their oppressors and, thus, being held responsible for their
long sufferings.
We cannot
promote democracy and side with the oppressors, and there is
no wisdom in taking an autonomous stance in this struggle
for freedom. It is in the interests of the whole world to
minimise the sufferings of the unfortunate and to eliminate
all kinds of oppression. Otherwise, the unscrupulous despots
who pretend to offer their help to fight terrorism, while
they oppress their own people, will continue to provide an
inexorable source of extremism.
The only way to
combat extremism is through the elimination of oppression
and authoritarianism and the promotion of democracy and
freedom throughout the world. However, it is not possible to
advance democracy without the inclusion of all political
forces, particularly the popular Islamic groups that are
willing to abide by democratic rules and reject violence.
Political
participation and engagement encourages all political groups
that aspire to be elected to moderate their stance and focus
on practical rather than ideological issues. Islamic groups
are not exceptional cases.
Indonesia’s
fully inclusive democratisation process clearly shows what
Islamists are really about and how they would behave in a
free and unimpeded political atmosphere. Since the fall of
Suharto’s authoritarian regime in 1998, all Indonesian
political forces, including Islamists, have been allowed to
freely organise and participate in democratic, free and fair
elections.
Initially, the
proliferation of Islamic parties in post-Suharto Indonesia
prompted many sceptics to express their concerns about the
future and stability of the democratisation process.
Some observers
even speculated that the Indonesian society will be plagued
with internal violence and conflicts. However, contrary to
these pessimistic expectations, Indonesian Islamic forces
did not obstruct democratic reform in their country. They
rather played a leading role in facilitating and stabilising
the democratisation process. They actively participated in
legislative and constitutional democratic reforms, promoted
democratic agendas and have consistently demonstrated their
unequivocal commitment to the democratic rules of the game,
even when the outcome was not favourable to their cause.
Therefore,
despite the existence of some challenges and shortcomings,
particularly with regard to the persistence of strong
patrimonial politics and weak political programs, with the
full participation and support of the mainstream Islamic
forces, Indonesia has successfully developed most of the
features of a democratic country.
All
authoritarian legacies and anti-democracy alternatives have
been eliminated. Freedom of speech and the media,
associational autonomy and civil liberties are largely
guaranteed. Free and fair elections and peaceful rotations
of power have become the norm. Democracy, in other words,
has become the only game in town with the full support of
the mainstream Islamic forces.
In fact, and
most remarkably, the only alternative to patrimonial
politics (a major shortcoming of Indonesian democracy)
appears to be emerging from the camp of Islamic parties. The
PKS (Prosperous Justice Party), which is very close to the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in its ideological and
organisational outlook, is the only Indonesian party which
relies on policies and programs rather than charismatic
leadership and patrimonialism.
Almost all
other Indonesian parties mainly rely on charismatic leaders
in order to gain electoral support. Many observers agree
that the PKS will likely lead to a gradual democratic
consolidation and more institutionalised democratic
practices in Indonesia. The PKS managed to foster an image
of a clean and visionary party and develop coherent
policy-oriented political program. As a result, it was the
only Indonesian party which significantly increased its
share of the vote in the 2004 parliamentary elections. The
number of its parliamentary seats increased from seven (in
1999 elections) to 45 seats.
Although
Islamic movements are significantly diverse, they are still
widely depicted by the Western media as monolithic and
hostile. It is very simplistic and misleading to group all
Islamic groups and movements together and regard them as
radical or violent. We cannot keep on all the nice talk
about tolerance and pluralism while rejecting the basic and
political rights of those who disagree with us.
People
throughout the world, especially in democratic countries,
should continue to press for an end to regime repression of
democratically spirited liberal and Islamic groups. They
should pressure their governments to categorically reject
such repression and condemn it in the strongest terms.
We should not
have the slightest doubt that wherever given a chance,
people of all backgrounds and cultures will choose
democracy, freedom, peace and progress. |
