http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/asia/29weapons.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=pakistan&st=cse
In this article in the NY Times entitled "U.S. Speeds Aid to Pakistan to fight Taliban", Eric Schmitt describes the US efforts to help Pakistan get rid of the Taliban influence within their country. This effort is not only being increased by the US but also is being sped up to help the struggling Pakistani government. Military analysts for the US have advised against publicly acknowledging the aid that they are giving to the Pakistanis because of the ammunition that it could provide to the opponents of the government. These opponents include the Islamist parties that oppose the current regime and the various insurgents that exist within the government. This rapid increase in aid by the US has not been solely pushed by the military analysts but also by President Barack Obama and also Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The journal article by Husain Huqqani entitled "The Role of Islam in Pakistan's Future" also talks about the U.S. various aids to the Pakistani government. Huqqani talks about the various ways in which the U.S. has aided Pakistan over the years since they became independent of India. First Huqqani cites the U.S.'s fight on Communism as a time when they helped Pakistan. Since Pakistan was a new country and also very close to the Soviet Union, the U.S. took the opportunity to help out the new Pakistani government and keep the communists from spreading into the country. Next the U.S. helped out the Pakistani government in its fight against Russia along with Afghanistan. Finally it helped out Pakistan in the wake of the September 11th attacks because of their pledge to help out with the war on terror. All of these instances highlight the U.S. continual aid to the Pakistani government. Huqqani also talks about how this aid has provided a massive amount of ammunition for the Islamist parties who do not want Western involvement in the government.
This aid that the U.S. is providing for the Pakistani's more and more has been a continuation of policy that was started in the 1950's. As shown by Huqqani, the U.S. continually has aided the Pakistani government. Because of this aid and the fact that, in the past, it has been public, the Islamist parties in Pakistan have become more and more powerful because of their criticism of allowing western influence within the country. This has served as a lesson for the current administration who has tried their hardest to keep their continued aid of the Pakistani's out of the press. This has kept the government that they want in power to remain powerful within the country and not become incredibly threatened especially now in a time of conflict in the Middle Eastern area.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Muslim Democracy-Turkey
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407EFDD133CF937A15754C0A9619C8B63&scp=4&sq=%22muslim%20democracy%22&st=cse
This article in the NY Times talks about the recent elections in Turkey that solidified the popularity of the AKP as the ruling party. The article lists several reasons why the AKP, what he considers a Muslim Democratic party, has become so powerful and well liked in Turkey. The first of these the reasons is the fact that the government that the AKP has run has been the most competent and successful government that they have had in years. Also the AKP has caused the countries economy to grow significantly over the past couple years and for the first time inflation has been brought under control. Finally the AKP has improved human's rights and made the government more compliant with the standards of the European Union. Unlike the other Islam parties that exist around the world, the AKP has actually become more liberal once they have been in power. This has all happened despite the constant oversight and threat of the military who has been very powerful in Turkey.
The journal article in the Journal of Democracy by Vali Nasr describes multiple Muslim Democratic parties including the AKP in Turkey. Nasr also describes the AKP as a Muslim Democracy but also emphasizes that the AKP does not use the term Islam or Muslim in their description. They refer to themselves as a "conservative democracy" which makes them much more likable in the secular government that they exist in. In addition to becoming more liberal once in power, the AKP in Turkey has also been able to tap into the large Muslim population that previously has been held down by the military. They have been able to do this by staying away from using terms like Islamists or shari'a law and instead concentrating on ideals that the Muslim people would agree with.
Both articles highlight the AKP and the reasons it has come to power and the stuff it has done in power. They have been able to stay away from the terms such as Muslim and Islam in favor of conservative. Despite the constant threat of interference by the military the AKP has been able to pass many reforms that have made the country more democratic and enabled it to become closer to what the European Union wants from Turkey in order to join. Finally the AKP has also brought the economy of Turkey on the right track and this has enabled them to stay popular not only among the Muslim supporters of their country but just about everyone else. The key to all of this is the fact that despite the threat of the military, the AKP has grown and flourished since its been in power.
This article in the NY Times talks about the recent elections in Turkey that solidified the popularity of the AKP as the ruling party. The article lists several reasons why the AKP, what he considers a Muslim Democratic party, has become so powerful and well liked in Turkey. The first of these the reasons is the fact that the government that the AKP has run has been the most competent and successful government that they have had in years. Also the AKP has caused the countries economy to grow significantly over the past couple years and for the first time inflation has been brought under control. Finally the AKP has improved human's rights and made the government more compliant with the standards of the European Union. Unlike the other Islam parties that exist around the world, the AKP has actually become more liberal once they have been in power. This has all happened despite the constant oversight and threat of the military who has been very powerful in Turkey.
The journal article in the Journal of Democracy by Vali Nasr describes multiple Muslim Democratic parties including the AKP in Turkey. Nasr also describes the AKP as a Muslim Democracy but also emphasizes that the AKP does not use the term Islam or Muslim in their description. They refer to themselves as a "conservative democracy" which makes them much more likable in the secular government that they exist in. In addition to becoming more liberal once in power, the AKP in Turkey has also been able to tap into the large Muslim population that previously has been held down by the military. They have been able to do this by staying away from using terms like Islamists or shari'a law and instead concentrating on ideals that the Muslim people would agree with.
Both articles highlight the AKP and the reasons it has come to power and the stuff it has done in power. They have been able to stay away from the terms such as Muslim and Islam in favor of conservative. Despite the constant threat of interference by the military the AKP has been able to pass many reforms that have made the country more democratic and enabled it to become closer to what the European Union wants from Turkey in order to join. Finally the AKP has also brought the economy of Turkey on the right track and this has enabled them to stay popular not only among the Muslim supporters of their country but just about everyone else. The key to all of this is the fact that despite the threat of the military, the AKP has grown and flourished since its been in power.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Islamic Fundamentalism
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21gerecht.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=islamic%20fundamentalism&st=cse&scp=8
In this NY Times article, Reuel Marc Gerecht describes the current situation in Iran with the Islamist regime that is holding power and the reformists led by Mir Hussein Moussavi. Gerecht describes the current regime as the Islamic Fundamentalists that took power from the secular dictatorship that was in power. Throughout the article, he also describes the main reason why the Fundamentalists were able to seize power from the dictatorship that was in power. This reason is the way that democracy has opened the door for the Fundamentalists to get the people to support them against the secular government. Democracy offers a means for the Fundamentalists to become more legitimate and thus gain far more support from the people. The Fundamentalists support the change to Democracy because they believe either that the people will make "good" decisions or that is the only peaceful means to get power.
In Sayyid's article, "Framin Fundamentalism", he describes a philosophy on Islamic Fundamentalism proposed by Gita Sahgal and Nira Yuval-Davis. Sahgal and Davis describe Fundamentalism as a social movement that would be opposed to a system of government that offers multiple points of view on policy making. According to them, Islamic Fundamentalism is opposed to a government that is not strictly sharia based. This would go against the article previously mentioned. Since Democracy is a government that allows a massive number of points of view to be present and get elected to office, a purely sharia based system of governance is very difficult to obtain. Thus Islamic Fundamentalists will not have what they want in a Democracy. This can be seen in the situation described in the news article by Gerecht. After the Fundamentalists took control in Iran they basically took the fairness out of the elections and made it so they were the only power in the Iranian government and Democracy was really no longer present.
Like Sayyid, I believe that Sahgal's and Davis' view on Fundamentalism is very shallow and not in depth at all. He believes that Islamic Fundamentalism has become a term that is used to describe many things that it is not. Sayyid basically replaces Islamic Fundamentalism with the term Islamism which he defines as people who use Muslim ideas as the center of their political practice. This approach to Islamic Fundamentalism/Islamism offers a very viable way for Democracy to work with this philosophy. People can use religion as a basis to making decisions as long as they can accept that a popular majority may exist in the opposite direction thus making some decisions to be made that are not religion based. This goes against Sahgal and Davis' philosophy that Democracy and Fundamentalism cannot co-exist because the Fundamentalists wish for a purely sharia based government.
In this NY Times article, Reuel Marc Gerecht describes the current situation in Iran with the Islamist regime that is holding power and the reformists led by Mir Hussein Moussavi. Gerecht describes the current regime as the Islamic Fundamentalists that took power from the secular dictatorship that was in power. Throughout the article, he also describes the main reason why the Fundamentalists were able to seize power from the dictatorship that was in power. This reason is the way that democracy has opened the door for the Fundamentalists to get the people to support them against the secular government. Democracy offers a means for the Fundamentalists to become more legitimate and thus gain far more support from the people. The Fundamentalists support the change to Democracy because they believe either that the people will make "good" decisions or that is the only peaceful means to get power.
In Sayyid's article, "Framin Fundamentalism", he describes a philosophy on Islamic Fundamentalism proposed by Gita Sahgal and Nira Yuval-Davis. Sahgal and Davis describe Fundamentalism as a social movement that would be opposed to a system of government that offers multiple points of view on policy making. According to them, Islamic Fundamentalism is opposed to a government that is not strictly sharia based. This would go against the article previously mentioned. Since Democracy is a government that allows a massive number of points of view to be present and get elected to office, a purely sharia based system of governance is very difficult to obtain. Thus Islamic Fundamentalists will not have what they want in a Democracy. This can be seen in the situation described in the news article by Gerecht. After the Fundamentalists took control in Iran they basically took the fairness out of the elections and made it so they were the only power in the Iranian government and Democracy was really no longer present.
Like Sayyid, I believe that Sahgal's and Davis' view on Fundamentalism is very shallow and not in depth at all. He believes that Islamic Fundamentalism has become a term that is used to describe many things that it is not. Sayyid basically replaces Islamic Fundamentalism with the term Islamism which he defines as people who use Muslim ideas as the center of their political practice. This approach to Islamic Fundamentalism/Islamism offers a very viable way for Democracy to work with this philosophy. People can use religion as a basis to making decisions as long as they can accept that a popular majority may exist in the opposite direction thus making some decisions to be made that are not religion based. This goes against Sahgal and Davis' philosophy that Democracy and Fundamentalism cannot co-exist because the Fundamentalists wish for a purely sharia based government.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Turkey and the AKP
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20iht-edasli.4.20336561.html?scp=2&sq=Turkey%20AKP&st=cse
In this NY Times article by Asli Aydintasbas, the author describes the new international relations policy that has been shaped by the AKP in Turkey. Traditionally Turkey has been a country that has catered to the west, more specifically the EU. Turkey has remained extremely secular despite some pressure from the surrounding nations in the area. In addition, Turkey and the AKP has continually tried become a member of the EU by changing their system of government to make it more democratic and also joining NATO. This was in an attempt to meet the EU's standards. But after the continuous denial by the EU, the AKP has started to change its thinking on its international policy. President Abdullah Gul has proposed a new policy that reaches out to Turkey's Middle Eastern neighbors and also countries such as Russia in order to expand economically and politically. This basically is basically an effort to expand Turkey's power and to offer an alternate source of international support should the relations between Turkey and the west turn sour. In addition, improving relations with their neighbors may help Turkey spread their form of Islamist government to the other countries in the area.
This form of Islamist government that is run in Turkey is something that Gamze Cavdar describes in his essay "Islamist New Thinking in Turkey: A Model for Political Thinking". Cavdar explains how the AKP has been able to run an "Islamist" government within a structure that is entirely secular. This ability is classified by Cavdar as "Islamist New Thinking". Cavdar also offers a few "pillars" of this new Islamist movement that allows the AKP to exist and work within the secular Turkish government. The first of these "pillars" is the ability of the political leaders to recognize what they can and cannot do based off of history. For example, the AKP cannot try to pass radical changes such as religious education and the wearing of headscarfs but instead can try to expand the role of Islam within the bounds of the secular government that is set up. The second "pillar" is basically the support of the Islamic thinkers in Turkey. With the support of these people, the AKP can stay within the bounds of the secular government and still have the support of the people since the Islamic thinkers support the AKP. The final "pillar" put forth by Cavdar is the economic support of the conservative capitalists. These people have thrown their support behind the AKP thus making the AKP the party of the rising middle class that is growing in Turkey. This gives the AKP great monetary and political support.
These two pieces offer to vastly different perspectives of the AKP. Cavdar offers a revolutionary look at the AKP as a party that is drifting towards the concentration of working within a secular government that is pro-West. On the other hand, the author of the NY Times article is looking at the AKP as drifting back towards supporting the Middle East and Russia and making them their prime allies. These are two vastly different views on the work of the AKP. But the fact remains that the AKP is a revolutionary government in that it is an Islamist party existing within a secular government. If Turkey can spread this form of government to some of the other states within the region as the NY Times article suggests, it may create better relations between the states in the Middle East and thus more peace in the region.
In this NY Times article by Asli Aydintasbas, the author describes the new international relations policy that has been shaped by the AKP in Turkey. Traditionally Turkey has been a country that has catered to the west, more specifically the EU. Turkey has remained extremely secular despite some pressure from the surrounding nations in the area. In addition, Turkey and the AKP has continually tried become a member of the EU by changing their system of government to make it more democratic and also joining NATO. This was in an attempt to meet the EU's standards. But after the continuous denial by the EU, the AKP has started to change its thinking on its international policy. President Abdullah Gul has proposed a new policy that reaches out to Turkey's Middle Eastern neighbors and also countries such as Russia in order to expand economically and politically. This basically is basically an effort to expand Turkey's power and to offer an alternate source of international support should the relations between Turkey and the west turn sour. In addition, improving relations with their neighbors may help Turkey spread their form of Islamist government to the other countries in the area.
This form of Islamist government that is run in Turkey is something that Gamze Cavdar describes in his essay "Islamist New Thinking in Turkey: A Model for Political Thinking". Cavdar explains how the AKP has been able to run an "Islamist" government within a structure that is entirely secular. This ability is classified by Cavdar as "Islamist New Thinking". Cavdar also offers a few "pillars" of this new Islamist movement that allows the AKP to exist and work within the secular Turkish government. The first of these "pillars" is the ability of the political leaders to recognize what they can and cannot do based off of history. For example, the AKP cannot try to pass radical changes such as religious education and the wearing of headscarfs but instead can try to expand the role of Islam within the bounds of the secular government that is set up. The second "pillar" is basically the support of the Islamic thinkers in Turkey. With the support of these people, the AKP can stay within the bounds of the secular government and still have the support of the people since the Islamic thinkers support the AKP. The final "pillar" put forth by Cavdar is the economic support of the conservative capitalists. These people have thrown their support behind the AKP thus making the AKP the party of the rising middle class that is growing in Turkey. This gives the AKP great monetary and political support.
These two pieces offer to vastly different perspectives of the AKP. Cavdar offers a revolutionary look at the AKP as a party that is drifting towards the concentration of working within a secular government that is pro-West. On the other hand, the author of the NY Times article is looking at the AKP as drifting back towards supporting the Middle East and Russia and making them their prime allies. These are two vastly different views on the work of the AKP. But the fact remains that the AKP is a revolutionary government in that it is an Islamist party existing within a secular government. If Turkey can spread this form of government to some of the other states within the region as the NY Times article suggests, it may create better relations between the states in the Middle East and thus more peace in the region.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Islam and Democracy
When first looking at the issue of Islam and Democracy, one of the first topics that come up is what does the Koran say about politics. Many people outside of the religion believe that Islam dictates a government that is philosophically and ideally opposite of that of Democracy. But when looking more closely at the religion, one can clearly see that Islam does not dictate a specific form of government. As Muhammad Salim al-Awa put it in his essay, "in neither the Qur'an nor the Sunnah does Islam prescribe a specific form of government." On the contrary, al-Awa goes on to say that Islam does dictate guidelines that the community and its rulers should go by. This is where many people get the belief that the Qur'an dictates a style of government when in fact it does not.
One of the main setback that keeps Islam and Democracy from coming together is the fact that in Islam, Allah is the only sovereign power. God makes all the rules and regulations that His followers live by. Thus in something like a democracy, rule of the people, it is heresy to have the people make the rules instead of God. Mawdudi states that Allah "alone is the law-giver. No man has the right to order others to do or not to do certain things." This shows that no other man can tell people what to do which means that no man can be the ruler of other men. This defeats the purpose of a democracy which is basically a bunch of men telling everyone else what is considered right and wrong and what people should do. Murad Hofmann shows this belief when he quotes Sayyid Qutb and says "any legislative act of a parliament is a blasphemous presumption and rebellion against God." This is a clear sign that some Muslims believe that a democracy is a blasphemous form of government because only God can tell people what to do.
One of the main setback that keeps Islam and Democracy from coming together is the fact that in Islam, Allah is the only sovereign power. God makes all the rules and regulations that His followers live by. Thus in something like a democracy, rule of the people, it is heresy to have the people make the rules instead of God. Mawdudi states that Allah "alone is the law-giver. No man has the right to order others to do or not to do certain things." This shows that no other man can tell people what to do which means that no man can be the ruler of other men. This defeats the purpose of a democracy which is basically a bunch of men telling everyone else what is considered right and wrong and what people should do. Murad Hofmann shows this belief when he quotes Sayyid Qutb and says "any legislative act of a parliament is a blasphemous presumption and rebellion against God." This is a clear sign that some Muslims believe that a democracy is a blasphemous form of government because only God can tell people what to do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)