I don’t neccessarily agree with what the writer states..but I figured a discussion would be interesting:
National sovereignty, the will of the people and democracy are great values, but become unintelligible when interpreted by philistines. We need an intellectual movement in the Muslim world which embraces the idea of a democracy that respects human rights
These days, sensible people in the Muslim world seek refuge in the victimhood syndrome which is also used by Al Qaeda and the regime of the Ayatollahs to justify oppression. The fundamental premise of this victimhood syndrome is that the ills afflicting us are the result of Western machinations. This is partly true. The Anglo-Saxon world leadership has violated rules of civilised relations between states and invaded Iraq on charges that have been proved false. I speak on the authority of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan who declared the invasion of Iraq unlawful.
But is this enough to indict the entire West or even the USA and Britain for the ills of our societies? I don’t think so. But the emotionalism is so powerful and infectious that efforts to question its wisdom become impossible. When wounded self-esteem combines with populist versions of national sovereignty and infantile ideas about democracy and the so-called will of the people, it produces a potent elixir that clouds all reason.
And when reason is paralysed one can either become a fatalist, resigned to the dismal reality or continue to question superficial radicalism in the hope that someone is listening.
I have heard it said, for example, that if the people of Afghanistan wanted Mullah Omar to rule them then the Taliban regime had the right to rule even if it drove the Afghan nation into the Stone Age. That Mullah Omar came to power through a bitter and bloody armed conflict riding the crest of an ideology which demonised the idea of the sovereignty of the people in favour of the sovereignty of God (read that of the mullahs practically) and practised what it preached with fanatical consistently does not show empirically or theoretically that the Taliban regime rested on the will of the people. The argument in favour of Mullah Omar is gibberish.
Consider an even more absurd argument. I am told that if the Pakistan government wants to build schools and roads and modernise Balochistan then it is to be opposed as the Pakistan military is an un-elected American ally that has no right to act in the name of the Pakistani people. I would like to know how the Baloch sardars draw their strength and legitimacy from the will of the Baloch people. As far as I know in the tribal sardari system, the sardar acts as a demi-god and no Baloch dare question that.
How does the sardari system rest on the will of the people? Confusing historical continuity with the will of the people makes nonsense of the notion of will of the people.
Agreed that the Pakistan government has exploited natural gas extracted from Balochistan and now property in Gwadar is allegedly being taken over by military officers. Both activities are unjust and the Baloch should be given their legitimate share. Senator Mushahid Hussain has presented a formula that seeks to give a fair share to the Baloch and Pakistanis should demand that it be implemented.
But I don’t understand why giving a share to the Baloch should mean preserving the sardari system. Why can’t we demand that the share must mean investment in schools, roads, hospitals, provision of clean drinking water etc, which liberate the masses from the unmitigated exploitation and degradation by the sardari system?
And why can’t the military government be made to spend on schools and other developments in Balochistan even if it is an American ally and has subverted democracy in the past? Why can’t I demand that it should restore democracy (by 2007 if not earlier), abolish the sardari system and instead spend national wealth in the interest of the people? If it can do all three, what’s the harm?
Pseudo-radicalism of the left and half-baked liberalism cannot explain logically or morally why the greatest slaughters of Muslims in recent times have always been the work of Muslims. The Iran-Iraq war which resulted from the uncontrollable ambition of Ayatollah Khomeini to spread his Islamic (read Shia) revolution all over the world met Saddam Hussein’s equally unflinching resolve to crush Shiite and Kurdish threats to his power. In the process 1.5 to 2 million Muslims were killed. We should also remember that in 1971 Pakistan army and the Mukti Bahini fought a civil war in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed.
The late Syrian leader Hafez Assad killed more Muslims in his own country in less than three weeks than what the ignoble Ariel Sharon has achieved in his entire military career, including his complicity in the murder of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in Lebanon. The number of people killed by Saddam Hussein during his reign of terror is yet to be calculated. To this must be added the thousands of judicial and extra-judicial murders committed by the Ayatollahs against their own people.
National sovereignty, the will of the people and democracy are great values, but become unintelligible when interpreted by philistines. We need an intellectual movement in the Muslim world which embraces the idea of a democracy that respects human rights (and not just mob-rule laced with cultural fascism); that completely and categorically rejects terror as a means to advance political objectives; and, puts ending feudalism, tribalism and mullahism on the top of its agenda.
It is a travesty of reason to blame the West for all the woes of Muslims. Western manipulation of Muslim societies to suit the former’s interests must end, but it can happen through a discourse that emancipates and not one based on a sense of victimhood.
A Muslim world dominated by religious fanatics, dictators, tribal sardars and landlords will always be a threat to peace and justice. Consequently playing footsie with the phantoms of Mullah Omar and Baloch sardars can only be the refuge of intellectually and morally bankrupt leftists and liberals.
The author is an associate professor of political science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is [email protected]
Daily Times