|
|
|
|
Iran, Islam and the Rule of Law
Islamic political movements have been one form of revolt against arbitrary government
By Francis Fukuyama | The Wall Street Journal
 The Iranian Constitution is a curious hybrid of authoritarian, theocratic and democratic elements. Articles One and Two do vest sovereignty in God, but Article Six mandates popular elections for the presidency and the Majlis, or parliament. Articles 19-42 are a bill of rights, guaranteeing, among other things, freedom of expression, public gatherings and marches, women's equality, protection of ethnic minorities, due process and private property, as well as some "second generation" social rights like social security and health care.
The rule of law was originally rooted in religion in all societies where it came to prevail, including the West. The great economist Friedrich Hayek noted that law should be prior to legislation. That is, the law should reflect a broad social consensus on the rules of justice. In Europe, it was the church that originally defined the law and acted as its custodian. European monarchs respected the rule of law because it was written by an authority higher and more legitimate than themselves.
Something similar happened in the pre-modern Middle East. There was a functional separation of church and state. The ulama were legal scholars and custodians of Shariah law while the sultans exercised political authority. The sultans conceded they were not the ultimate source of law but had to live within rules established by Muslim case law. There was no democracy, but there was something resembling a rule of law.
This traditional, religiously based rule of law was destroyed in the Middle East's transition to modernity. Replacing it, particularly in the Arab world, was untrammeled executive authority: Presidents and other dictators accepted no constraints, either legislative or judicial, on their power.
The legal scholar Noah Feldman has argued that the widespread demand for a return to Shariah in many Muslim countries does not necessarily reflect a desire to impose harsh, Taliban-style punishments and oppress women. Rather, it reflects a nostalgia for a dimly remembered historical time when Muslim rulers were not all-powerful autocrats, but respected Islamic rules of justice-Islamic rule of law.
Iran could evolve towards a genuine rule-of-law democracy within the broad parameters of the 1979 constitution. It would be necessary to abolish Article 110, which gives the Guardian Council control over the armed forces and the media, and to shift its function to something more like a supreme court that could pass judgment on the consistency of legislation with Shariah. In time, the Council might be subject to some form of democratic control, like the U.S. Supreme Court, even if its members needed religious credentials.
Full Article
|
Interview with Ibrahim Yazdi -
How to Make an Islamic Democracy
Interview by Manal Lutfi| Asharq Al-Awsat
 The Secretary General of the Iran Freedom Movement Ibrahim Yazdi, whose movement is one of the parties forming the 'reform trend' in Iran, has warned that Iran is on its way to becoming like the former Soviet Union -"the strongest totalitarian regime with very efficient but corrupt secret police."
He explained in an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat that 30 years after establishing the Islamic Republic and the fall of the Shah, his fears for the fate of the revolution are uppermost in his mind: "The Soviet Union collapsed because the leaders move to reform the system and respond to peoples' demands came late, and I believe that Iran is going down the same road," he said, adding: "The difference is that Iran is not an empire to disintegrate into republics, and the collapse of the Soviet Union marked the end of the Marxist ideology. But unlike Marxism, Islam will not disappear; it is part of our identity and culture and I am not worried about Islam. Islam has God to protect it; but I am worried about the republic and democracy in my country."
He went on to say: "We have been fighting for democracy all our lives. In my case, I have been fighting for democracy for 60 years. I know that the road to democracy is not easy, and I know that we need the patience of Job, the longevity of Noah and diplomacy of the Prophet Muhammad."
According to Yazdi, the Iranian ruling elite has two choices: either they try to suppress the street, or go along with it and respond to its demands. Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Karrubi and Khatami are trying to do the latter, by virtue of their influence in the regime's institutions, he said, adding that "the fanaticism of the conservatives indicates that a compromise solution would be difficult to avoid."
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What do you think to Rafsanjani's Friday speech?
[Yazdi] Everyone knows that as a result of the presidential elections the gap between the nation and the state has become wider. More importantly, the new generation in Iran and the reform movement are trying to remedy the situation from within the regime and the framework of the present constitution. Consequently, they take advantage of every opportunity to express their views peacefully. When the people heard that Rafsanjani was going to lead the Friday prayers and that Mousavi, Karrubi and Khatami would be there, hundreds of thousands of supporters went to join in the prayers and demonstrations. It was a civilized gathering, but unfortunately the plainclothes secret police attacked Karrubi and the demonstrators. That was painful and it increased the people's mistrust in the ruling regime.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you think Rafsanjani's speech covered all the issues that the people wanted him to talk about, and do you think he is capable of pushing for a political solution to the crisis?
[Yazdi] Yes I do. Rafsanjani has expressed the demands of the Iranian street. As for whether he is capable of pushing for a peaceful solution to the crisis, I believe that if we take into consideration that in his speech he spoke of a political solution, and if we take into consideration that that the authorities cannot continue with the present situation, it becomes inevitable that a peaceful political solution for the present crisis has to be found. That is why I believe that Rafsanjani is capable and is working for a political solution from within the system.
Read Full Interview
|
Al-Jazeera's New Venture in the U.S.
 On July 1, 2009, Al-Jazeera English began broadcasting in Washington, DC on the MHz Network. MHz Network
is an independent, non-commercial television broadcaster that provides
international programming to the Washington-area. Al-Jazeera English
only broadcasts in two other locations within the US: Toledo, Ohio and
Burlington, Vermont, reports Forbes Magazine.
The
deal with MHz Networks is a big step in Al-Jazeera's attempt to break
into the US market. Tony Burman, managing director of Al-Jazeera
English, tells Forbes Magazine that now there exists a new
opportunity for Al-Jazeera in the US. "The transition from the Bush era
to the Obama era has changed the game dramatically" because "as America
reengages with the wider world, the appetite for more international
news is there."
However,
Al-Jazeera's greatest challenge in the US will be to overcome
American's perception of bias in Al-Jazeera's reporting. Many Americans
believe Al-Jazeera promotes a negative image of the US and Western
Europe. According to the Associated Press, former President George W. Bush frequently accused Al-Jazeera of "anti-Americanism."
Burman
claims that the network has no connection to Al-Qaeda and is on a par
with CNN International and BBC World in the quality of its programming.
Forbes Magazine asserts that although the network is owned by
the government of Qatar, it is free of censorship and government
meddling. Furthermore, oil-and-gas-rich Qatar is not an enemy of the US.
Interestingly,
Burman believes that skepticism about the network's point of view can
be an advantage, since Al-Jazeera aims "to appeal to viewers who get
tired of Western or American perspectives and want a more global view
of the world."
Full Article |
Will Islamic Opposition Movements Seize the Day?
By Amr Hamzawy and Jeffrey Christiansen | The Daily News
When it comes to democratic development in the Arab world, the ball is
now squarely in the court of Islamic opposition movements. US President
Barack Obama has spoken. Defying expectations that he would downplay
domestic affairs and democracy promotion in favor of a more realist
outlook, Obama used his platform at Cairo University to enunciate fresh
policy. The United States, he stated, will respect "all law-abiding
voices... even if we disagree with them" and will "welcome all elected,
peaceful governments".
 Obama was targeting a specific audience:
Islamic opposition movements across the Arab world that have renounced
violence, accepted the political process and currently represent a
popular and potential force for pluralism in the region.
Now that the United States is willing to engage them, what will it take for them to come to the table?
To capture
US attention, however, Islamic opposition movements need to address two
core US concerns: would their positions on key international issues
value stability? And would their positions on key domestic issues
reflect a commitment to democratic ideals and procedures?
Internationally,
the biggest concern is that Islamic movements would aim to disrupt the
international system. Would they, in fact, honor their countries'
obligations under existing international agreements? Would a government
controlled by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, for example, abide by
the terms of the Camp David agreement and maintain diplomatic relations
with the Jewish state? Would the Jordanian Brotherhood respect the
peace treaty between Jordan and Israel? Can Hamas commit to the Oslo
framework and recognize Israel's right to exist? There should be no
doubt that failing to recognize their countries' treaties would
perpetuate the "pariah" status of these movements in the eyes of the
United States.
Domestically, Islamic movements need to clarify
their stance on several issues. On the role of Islam in politics, they
cannot repudiate their commitment to sharia (a legal system based on
Islamic principles). But they could allay many fears by being clearer about the principles of sharia they consider central.
These
movements also need to address their dual identity as both religious
movements and political actors. Some movements, like the Justice and
Development Party in Morocco, have already established separate
political movements. But others, like the powerful Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood, while prevented by the government from forming a political
party, are nonetheless reluctant to commit to one in principle.
Addressing
these concerns would go a long way in persuading the United States to
engage Islamic movements in making the Arab world a better place. Of
course, at the end of the day, it's the authoritarian rulers themselves
who must reform. But a pragmatic collaboration between the new US
administration and peaceful Islamic movements could spur such rulers
towards a more pluralistic Arab world. Now that the ball is in their
court, Islamic opposition movements should seize the moment.
Full Article |
Confidence in Obama Lifts U.S. Image Around the WorldMost Muslim Publics Not So Easily Moved
By the Pew Global Attitudes Project
 The image of the United States has improved markedly in
most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama.
In many countries opinions of the United States are now about as
positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W.
Bush took office. Improvements in the U.S. image have been most
pronounced in Western Europe, where favorable ratings for both the
nation and the American people have soared. But opinions of America
have also become more positive in key countries in Latin America,
Africa and Asia, as well.
Signs of improvement in views of America are seen even
in some predominantly Muslim countries that held overwhelmingly
negative views of the United States in the Bush years. The most notable
increase occurred in Indonesia, where people are well aware of Obama's
family ties to the country and where favorable ratings of the U.S.
nearly doubled this year. However for the most part, opinions of the
U.S. among Muslims in the Middle East remain largely unfavorable,
despite some positive movement in the numbers in Jordan and Egypt.
Animosity toward the U.S., however, continues to run deep and unabated
in Turkey, the Palestinian territories and Pakistan.
Israel stands out in the poll as the only public among
the 25 surveyed where the current U.S. rating is lower than in past
surveys.
Download Complete Report |
The Arab world - Waking from its sleep
A quiet revolution has begun in the Arab world; it will be complete only when the last failed dictatorship is voted out
From The Economist print edition
 What ails the Arabs? The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) this week published the fifth in a series of hard-hitting reports on the state of the Arab world. It makes depressing reading. The Arabs are a dynamic and inventive people whose long and proud history includes fabulous contributions to art, culture, science and, of course, religion. The score of modern Arab states, on the other hand, have been impressive mainly for their consistent record of failure.
For this reason, you can bet that if the regimes have their way, Arabs will not get the chance. Arab rulers hold on to power through a cynical combination of coercion, intimidation and co-option. From time to time they let hollow parties fight bogus elections, which then return them to power. Where genuine opposition exists it tends to be fatally split between Islamist movements on one hand and, on the other, secular parties that fear the Islamists more than they dislike the regimes themselves. Most of the small cosmetic reforms Arab leaders enacted when Mr Bush was pushing his "freedom agenda" on unwilling allies have since been rolled back. If anything, sad to say, the cause of democracy became tainted by association with a president most Arabs despised for invading Iraq.
Can regimes that are failing their people so clearly really hold sway over some 350m people indefinitely? Hosni Mubarak has been Egypt's president for 28 years; Muammar Qaddafi has run Libya since 1969. When Hafez Assad died after three decades as president of Syria, power passed smoothly to his son Bashar. After the failure of Mr Bush's efforts to promote democracy, and the debacle in Iraq, Barack Obama has put "respect" rather than "freedom" at the centre of America's discourse with the Muslim world. That may be wise: since the advent of Mr Obama, America's standing has risen in Arab eyes, and Mr Bush's zeal for reforming other countries was counterproductive anyway. But this suggests that if the Arabs want democracy, they will have to grab it for themselves.
The hard question is how much ordinary Arabs want all this. There have been precious few Tehran-style protests on the streets of Cairo. Most Arabs still seem unwilling to pay the price of change. Or perhaps, observing Iraq, they prefer stagnation to the chaos that change might bring. But regimes would be unwise to count on permanent passivity. As our special report in this issue argues, behind the political stagnation of the Arab world a great social upheaval is under way, with far-reaching consequences.
In almost every Arab country, fertility is in decline, more people, especially women, are becoming educated, and businessmen want a bigger say in economies dominated by the state. Above all, a revolution in satellite television has broken the spell of the state-run media and created a public that wants the rulers to explain and justify themselves as never before. On their own, none of these changes seems big enough to prompt a revolution. But taken together they are creating a great agitation under the surface. The old pattern of Arab government - corrupt, opaque and authoritarian - has failed on every level and does not deserve to survive. At some point it will almost certainly collapse. The great unknown is when.
Full Article
|
In Fighting Radical Islam, Tricky Course for U.S. Aid
Separation of Church and State at Issue
By Colum Lynch | Washington Post Staff Writer
The role of religion in overseas assistance has long been highly sensitive for a country founded on the principle that state and religion should be separate. But as U.S. policymakers seek to curtail the influence of radical Islam, they are being increasingly hamstrung by legal barriers, some experts say.
USAID does provide funds for faith-based organizations -- mostly Christian groups -- in instances in which it says the aid is strictly for secular purposes. But the line between secular and religious is often blurry.
"Our legal position is too conservative. We've got a war on terror," Brown said. "The lawyers are concerned about excessive entanglement with religion. Well, we're already entangled."
Brown maintains that U.S. efforts to promote democracy and build schools, roads and clinics in the Islamic world will not succeed unless American officials help foster the spread of moderate Islam and its a message of peace.
Gary Winter, USAID's legal counsel, said the agency would never fund any program with a religious purpose. He added, though, that "the legal test goes beyond that to [include] endorsement of religion, indoctrination of religions, excessive entanglement with religion. We have to try to accomplish our secular purpose while still not violating these legal principles."
Little USAID funding has gone to Islamic groups in recent years. From 2001 to 2005, more than 98 percent of agency funds for faith-based organizations went to Christian groups, according to figures obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Boston Globe newspaper in 2006. Winter said most of the faith-based groups applying for aid have been Christian. He added that the agency is eager to reach out to Islamic moderates.
Full Article |
Turkish Citizens Lose Trust in Their Military
Newsweek
 For 86 years, since modern Turkey was founded by an Ottoman general,
the Army has been the country's most trusted institution. It has
launched four coups in the past four decades, each with broad popular
support. Now, following charges against top brass for plotting a coup
and organizing death squads against Kurdish activists, the honeymoon is
over. A recent poll by the Ankara-based MetroPOLL Social Research
Center shows 65 percent of Turks do not want the military involved in
politics, even as commentators; nearly 40 percent say former top
general Kenan Evren should face trial for his role in a 1980 coup. The
shift in opinion is a shock for the Army, which sees itself as the
people's protector against corrupt politicians.
Yet memos leaked last
month appear to show Turkish officers working to subvert the
Islamist-rooted AK Party government-despite its large democratic
mandate. The papers reveal plans to orchestrate press smears against
AK, and to invent a fake terrorist organization linked to an exiled
Islamic scholar who is close to AK Party leaders. The memos may even be
an elaborate fake, but they place the Army and the AK Party on a
collision course. The party is fighting back by restricting the powers
of military courts, and strengthening the capacity of civilian courts
to prosecute military suspects. The age of the untouchable Turkish
Army, and the popular coup, may be closing.
Full Article
|
|
|
|
To become a member of CSID, please click here. To make a donation, please click here. Please remember that CSID needs your membership and support to continue its mission of promoting a greater understanding of Islam in the US, and a better understanding and implementation of democracy in the Muslim world. With our best wishes and regards,
Sincerely,
|
Radwan A. Masmoudi
President
Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy |
|
|
