The challenge of religion-based politics

The question that arises in the minds of many is whether religious conservatism has become the order of the day or the Bush victory is to be regarded as a quirk of history in an otherwise sequential historical progress of the world towards Francis Fukuyama's liberal democracy constituting the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and the "final form of government" and as such signaling the "end of history." But Fukuyama himself has conceded that "one is inclined to say that the revival of religion in some way attests to a broad unhappiness with the impersonality and spiritual vacuity of liberal consumerists societies."

Though the Iranian revolution of 1979 which created a theocratic state came as a rude shock to the Western world, it was not totally unexpected because opposition to Reza Shah Pahlavi was building up for quite some time and anti-American feeling was bristling among the people due to the CIA engineering the ouster of nationalist Prime Minister Mosadegh and the reinstallation of the Shah to the Peacock throne. Besides, the western world was not unduly worried because the "enemy" was an identifiable nation-state which could be attacked and fought against. The decade long Iraq-Iran war, during which Saddam Hussein's regime was fully supported by the West particularly the US, was predicated on the premise that the spread of theocratic political movement could be contained.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The discomfort felt by the largely Sunni majority Arab states at the emergence of a Shia theocratic state in their neighborhood was fully exploited by the West. Additionally the need for oil and military bases induced the western countries to ignore the "democracy deficit" prevalent in the Middle Eastern client states of the West. The threshold of western tolerance for radical Islamic movements was so high that in its monocentric policy of aiding the Afghan mujahedeens through Pakistani Intelligence Services to dislodge the Soviets from Afghanistan, the West failed to see the emergence of brutal Taliban regime till the tragic events of 9/11 occurred.

Oliver Roy sees implicit threat in this brand of modern Islamic political fundamentalism claiming to recreate new Islamic societies, not simply by imposing the Sharia laws but by establishing Islamic state through political action. Islamists see Islam not merely as a religion but as a political ideology which should be integrated in all aspects of the society.

After Afghanistan, Islamic fundamentalism went global with its appeal to a section of Muslim society based on moral, cultural, and political grounds. The Islamists argue that western culture, particularly the one practiced by western women, is essentially degenerative and incompatible with Quranic literalism. They argue that the values propagated by the West threaten Islamic purity and hence their advance is to be thwarted at any cost.

Political argument is by far the easiest to sell to the wayward Muslim population who despite declaration of piety could have nursed in the darkest corner of their heart a desire to commit the original sin. The Islamists argue that the reasons for economic backwardness, political repression, and societal dysfunction were caused by western, particularly American assistance, given to the repressive regimes in the Muslim world.

So Osama bin Laden's deputy Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri faced little problem in becoming an ideologue of hatred to some marginalized Muslims living at the fringe of an often affluent society. In his Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, a manifesto on jihad, al-Zawahiri explains that it is legitimate to strike western populations, not just their governments and institutions, because they "only know the language of self-interest, backed by brute military force."

The problems faced by the Islamic secular movements have been compounded by the iconic presence of Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis in literature trying to explain the democratic deficit generally suffered by the Muslim world. To Huntington in Islam God is Caesar, in Confucianism Caesar is God, and in European Orthodox Christianity God is Caesar's junior partner. Unhesitatingly Huntington declares: "The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam."

Historian Bernard Lewis saw the clash of civilizations earlier than Huntington in terms of Islamic vs. Christian and post-Christians and rigid theocratic hierarchy vs. permissive secular modernism. Lewis perceived Muslim world's "downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression" being caused by the Islamic world's defeat at the hands of Judeo-Christian civilizations. But in this sweeping critique of Islam, Lewis and others have forgotten that refusal of western hegemony does not necessarily mean wholesale abandonment of western values.

Professor Robert Hefner correctly asserts that there is no clash of civilizations between the Islamic and Christian worlds, and the really decisive battle is being waged within the Muslim civilization where ultra-conservatives are competing with the moderates and democrats for the soul of Islam. In understanding the intensity of the battle it is necessary to distinguish between neo-fundamentalists with transnational reach and secular Islam which believes in the subordination of religion to the state. In this debate, one may have to make the difficult choice of whether or not to ban religion-based political parties. An inconclusive debate remains about the incompatibility of democracy with monotheistic religions. Robert Dahl in his classic book Polyarchy had set eight essential requirements for democracy: right to form and join organizations; freedom of expression; right to vote; eligibility for public office; right of political leaders to compete for support for vote; and institutions for making government policies dependant on vote and other expressions of preference.

Other political scientists have added that democracy must also have a constitution that by itself is democratic in that it respects fundamental liberties and offers protection to minorities. Additionally, democratically elected governments must rule within the confines of their constitutions, be bound by law and be accountable. From historical observations it has been found that religions place inherent obstacles in the way of democracy.

Philosopher John Rawls found it particularly difficult in a pluralistic society in which citizens hold a variety of socially embedded, reasonable yet deeply opposed comprehensive doctrines to arrive at an overlapping consensus. In the case of Islam, some western scholars have found that because of the Prophet Mohammed's (SM) fusion of military and spiritual authority and because Quranic laws are deemed to be final, the space for democratic debate for the formation of secular laws does not exist in Muslim societies. Some other scholars however have found that appropriation of political Islam by Islamic fundamentalists is untenable and millions of Muslims living outside the Arab world live in intermittent democracies and they may not become victims of so-called Islamic Free Election Trap in which fundamentalists use democratic means to get to power only to abolish democratic practices through legislation.

There is however no denying the fact that religion-based politics generate fear among minority community, the protection of whom has been pledged by all civilized countries. In Bangladesh, for example, the recent events involving terrorist activities allegedly perpetrated by Islamic extremists have strengthened the demands of the secularists to ban religion-based political activities. The 1972 Bangladesh Constitution did provide for such a ban. The post-1975 conservative establishments amended the Constitution once in 1977 and again in 1988 by passing the 8th Amendment, making Islam the state religion. Additionally, the Vested (Enemy) Property Act enacted during Pakistani rule through which 2.1 million acres of Hindu-owned land were confiscated, remains in our statute book even today.

Every year US State Department's Religious and Human Rights reports, reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch chronicle abuses perpetrated on the minority community in Bangladesh. The leader of the opposition in Bangladesh Parliament has demanded of the government that the two ministers from Jamat-e Islami be interrogated by the police to "unearth the mystery" behind religious militancy in the country.

Another opposition political leader has alleged that JMB and JMJB are in fact creations of Jamat-e-Islami; that Jamat had funneled more than one crore taka to the Talibans after the US attacked Afghanistan in 2001; that al Qaida through Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence and Jamat-e-Islami had engaged many militant Bangladeshis to wage war in Afghanistan against NATO forces; and that Jamat-e-Islami shelters at least sixteen radical groups in the country committed to establish Taliban-like Islamist regime in Bangladesh.

It is generally recognized that monotheistic religions adorned with univocality violate human rights of the minorities in particular, that excessive devotion to religion acts as impediment to economic advancement and promote sectarian divide (e.g. Shia-Sunni conflicts in Pakistan and in Iraq), that religious characterization of a nation can cause international conflict (e.g. Middle East conflict with Jewish state of Israel), etc.

Thomas Jefferson decried the attempt by "the impious presumption of legislature and ruler, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who themselves being fallible" to impose on others their belief. Pandit Jawarharlal Nehru expressed his horror and condemnation of "the spectacle of what is called religion or at any rate organized religion in India or elsewhere."

In recent times, Bangladesh has already been reported upon by The New York Times, Asian Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and European Community for religious militancy. Our uniform response to these allegations has been that the allegations are fictitious and ill-motivated. One must however recognize the fact that, while Time magazine and The New York Times are read by millions the world over, our denials hardly ever get reported outside the country.

In today's world of globalization, with people living in "over-lapping communities of fate" where trajectories of countries are heavily enmeshed with one another, perhaps the time has come to seriously consider whether religion based politics should not be banned in Bangladesh.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.