Since when was it ok to use the word Islamist? There's the religion Islam. There's the adjective Islamic, but what in God's name - no pun intended - is Islamist. What is a Islamist? Indeed it is not a new term. Its been used over and over again and, for some reason, no one in the mainstream media has, at least effectively, thought for a minute before using it so freely.
Just today, WSJ dared to publish a new article entitled "Islamists Lead Massive Protest in Cairo." Discussing the recent Al Sami Document - which is supposedly to "replace" the Egyptian constitution, as in giving power to the military through a confidential and unchallenged budget, and providing rights to minorities - gives the word anti-semantic a whole new meaning. Matt Bradley writes:
these MUSLIMS any less liberal than their "Liberal" counterparts? Oh, because they are more religious, does that make them less politically Liberal? Since when? Aren't they marching alongside these "liberals and secular minded" Egyptians? Oh, you meant RELIGIOUSLY conservative - that is to assume Islamists ARE religiously conservative. Ok, then. Since when was it a bad thing to be religiously conservative?
The story of Islamism - as it is apparently called - is a combination of the religious and political philosophies of Islam. Islamists are radical Muslims, no doubt. They believe Islam should be used as a way of governing. But They are not extremists. Sayed Khatab, a professor at Monash University, in his "Democracy in Islam" argues that Islamism - that is Islamist Democracy (yes such a thing exists) - is rather a counter to extremism. The extremism that usually blossoms in the "top tier" of Islamist polities would be, according this type of Sunni Islamist political theory, balanced out by the "lower tier" - first the scholarly class, now everyone. The all too infamous Shia model is the exact opposite. As libertarian as the Sunni model is, the Shia model is authoritarian. As communal as the Sunni model is, the Shia model is individualized. With the power in the Sunni model residing with the people, more laws are created with the people's interest in mind, the more "liberal" the policies. On the contrary, under the Shia way of doing things, the power class (the "priests" and "descendents of Muhammad") capitalize on a religious populus. So to keep them from political and religious protest, the lower classes are kept away from a "liberal" interpretation of Islam and "Islamism."
So suppose we make a comparison. This won't be ideal because it is not an apple-to-apple comparison, nor an orange-to-apple for that matter, but rather a Granny Smith-to-McKintosh. If we look at Egypt's current demographic as a filling for the Sunni Islamist democracy framework and compare that to the Sunni Islamist democracy model in Iran, we can see for sure that the "Islamist" cause does not have to be either a politically conservative or a religiously conservative one. (All the data is from the CIA World Factbook).
Iran
Education expenditures:
4.7% of GDP (2009)
country comparison to the world: 71
Unemployment, youth ages 15-24:
total: 23%
country comparison to the world: 38
male: 20.2%
female: 34% (2008)
School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 13 years
male: 13 years
female: 13 years (2009)
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 77%
male: 83.5%
female: 70.4% (2002 est.)
Egypt
Education expenditures:
3.8% of GDP (2008)
country comparison to the world: 109
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 71.4%
male: 83%
female: 59.4% (2005 est.)
School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 11 years
male: 11 years
female: 11 years (2004)
Unemployment, youth ages 15-24:
total: 24.8%
country comparison to the world: 32
male: 17.2%
female: 47.9% (2007)
Indeed these numbers tell us about the Societies of Iran and Egypt. There is a higher literacy rate in Iran. Iranians stay in school longer than Egyptians. Their youth employments is almost the same. But here's the kicker: Iran spends more on its education. An entire 1% of its GDP. That may not sound much that is an additional 3.3 billion USD. Yeah...that's plenty. And, oh, another thing...Iran does not allow certain religious minorities to enter college. Hmm...I wonder why?
Egypt is the produces the most Ph.D.s in Africa, more than South Africa. It is truly the Academic's playground. And there cannot be a better way to use this for the country's good than the Sunni model. After all, "pursuing a doctoral programme in Egypt is almost worthless, except for those already working in universities and research centres." The creation of a Islamist Democracy would call for pressure groups and think tanks that would employ the power of these Ph.D.s, not to mention the call for change by the Tahrir Square protests. Indeed this involves a sort of "thougtful" and dynamic government, not a comfortable government that only seeks to preserve its power. So why exactly does the Iran populus remain in power? There have been protests in Iran.
Consider how Iran and Egypt line up in religion:
Egypt
Religions:
Muslim (mostly Sunni) 90%, Coptic 9%, other Christian 1%
Iran
Religions:
Muslim (official) 98% (Shia 89%, Sunni 9%), other (includes Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i) 2%
There is an obvious difference. The majority of the Iranian population assumes the Ayatollah is the rightful ruler of Iran. In Egypt it couldn't be far from the truth.
Indeed Egypt has the potential for becoming the model Islamist Democracy . The moral righteousness of such, though, must be questioned, first of all...would it really consider every citizen who must obey its rules and laws? Obviously not, there is an entire 9% of the population who are ethnically Egyptian but Christian...tracing their roots to the Christians of Roman Egypt, when Egypt's majority was, in fact, Christian. In fact, it is very much their nation. This is a question Egypt must consider...the Islamist potential. It should not be shunned to curry favor from an ignorant Western media. The West does NOT know everything, as dear Mr. Matt Bradley from the WSJ has proved.
What's better, the Islamist Democratic model does not have to necessarily not consider minority interest by default. The Egyptian revolution has evolved to describe the Coptics as "dahaya, victims, of the" rogue government to "shohada', martyrs." Indeed the Coptics have been accepted by their Muslim counterparts. But Marc Michael of Al-Jeezera makes a different argument, that is the Coptics are actually adopting an " Anglo-Saxon liberal thought" that "cheer[s] them to embrace their estrangement from Egyptian society, to value their alienation as an end in itself, and to seek the legal support of the state in establishing their difference as a social fact." So the future of a righteous Islamist Democratic state in Egypt, to live up to its potential as the ideal Islamist state, depends on a few conditions: 1. the Al Sami document must fail so the Egyptian constitution is preserved 2. the Coptics must compromise with the Muslims to create a fair Democratic state that is based on Islamist theory but considers equally the interest of the minorities, the Coptics. (After all, consideration is the most important thing in a democracy). 3. the West must stop making these assumptions that "Islamism" cannot be democracy. 4. Iran must reform its education system. Islamist democracy will allow for academics read in Islam and political, economic, etc theory will be able to optimize democracy in the middle east. If anything, it is the only hope for Middle East peace via an enlightened not passion-driven demos. This is key to the Tahrir Square revolution and, if successful in Egypt, the Arab Spring.
Just today, WSJ dared to publish a new article entitled "Islamists Lead Massive Protest in Cairo." Discussing the recent Al Sami Document - which is supposedly to "replace" the Egyptian constitution, as in giving power to the military through a confidential and unchallenged budget, and providing rights to minorities - gives the word anti-semantic a whole new meaning. Matt Bradley writes:
"Though the crowd drew heavily on Islamists, the message of the day was on that many liberals and secular-minded protesters could support."Could there BE any more bias in his writing? "Islamists?" "Liberals and secular-minded protesters?" How are
these MUSLIMS any less liberal than their "Liberal" counterparts? Oh, because they are more religious, does that make them less politically Liberal? Since when? Aren't they marching alongside these "liberals and secular minded" Egyptians? Oh, you meant RELIGIOUSLY conservative - that is to assume Islamists ARE religiously conservative. Ok, then. Since when was it a bad thing to be religiously conservative?
The story of Islamism - as it is apparently called - is a combination of the religious and political philosophies of Islam. Islamists are radical Muslims, no doubt. They believe Islam should be used as a way of governing. But They are not extremists. Sayed Khatab, a professor at Monash University, in his "Democracy in Islam" argues that Islamism - that is Islamist Democracy (yes such a thing exists) - is rather a counter to extremism. The extremism that usually blossoms in the "top tier" of Islamist polities would be, according this type of Sunni Islamist political theory, balanced out by the "lower tier" - first the scholarly class, now everyone. The all too infamous Shia model is the exact opposite. As libertarian as the Sunni model is, the Shia model is authoritarian. As communal as the Sunni model is, the Shia model is individualized. With the power in the Sunni model residing with the people, more laws are created with the people's interest in mind, the more "liberal" the policies. On the contrary, under the Shia way of doing things, the power class (the "priests" and "descendents of Muhammad") capitalize on a religious populus. So to keep them from political and religious protest, the lower classes are kept away from a "liberal" interpretation of Islam and "Islamism."
So suppose we make a comparison. This won't be ideal because it is not an apple-to-apple comparison, nor an orange-to-apple for that matter, but rather a Granny Smith-to-McKintosh. If we look at Egypt's current demographic as a filling for the Sunni Islamist democracy framework and compare that to the Sunni Islamist democracy model in Iran, we can see for sure that the "Islamist" cause does not have to be either a politically conservative or a religiously conservative one. (All the data is from the CIA World Factbook).
Iran
Education expenditures:
4.7% of GDP (2009)
country comparison to the world: 71
Unemployment, youth ages 15-24:
total: 23%
country comparison to the world: 38
male: 20.2%
female: 34% (2008)
School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 13 years
male: 13 years
female: 13 years (2009)
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 77%
male: 83.5%
female: 70.4% (2002 est.)
Egypt
Education expenditures:
3.8% of GDP (2008)
country comparison to the world: 109
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 71.4%
male: 83%
female: 59.4% (2005 est.)
School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education):
total: 11 years
male: 11 years
female: 11 years (2004)
Unemployment, youth ages 15-24:
total: 24.8%
country comparison to the world: 32
male: 17.2%
female: 47.9% (2007)
Indeed these numbers tell us about the Societies of Iran and Egypt. There is a higher literacy rate in Iran. Iranians stay in school longer than Egyptians. Their youth employments is almost the same. But here's the kicker: Iran spends more on its education. An entire 1% of its GDP. That may not sound much that is an additional 3.3 billion USD. Yeah...that's plenty. And, oh, another thing...Iran does not allow certain religious minorities to enter college. Hmm...I wonder why?
Egypt is the produces the most Ph.D.s in Africa, more than South Africa. It is truly the Academic's playground. And there cannot be a better way to use this for the country's good than the Sunni model. After all, "pursuing a doctoral programme in Egypt is almost worthless, except for those already working in universities and research centres." The creation of a Islamist Democracy would call for pressure groups and think tanks that would employ the power of these Ph.D.s, not to mention the call for change by the Tahrir Square protests. Indeed this involves a sort of "thougtful" and dynamic government, not a comfortable government that only seeks to preserve its power. So why exactly does the Iran populus remain in power? There have been protests in Iran.
Consider how Iran and Egypt line up in religion:
Egypt
Religions:
Muslim (mostly Sunni) 90%, Coptic 9%, other Christian 1%
Iran
Religions:
Muslim (official) 98% (Shia 89%, Sunni 9%), other (includes Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i) 2%
There is an obvious difference. The majority of the Iranian population assumes the Ayatollah is the rightful ruler of Iran. In Egypt it couldn't be far from the truth.
Indeed Egypt has the potential for becoming the model Islamist Democracy . The moral righteousness of such, though, must be questioned, first of all...would it really consider every citizen who must obey its rules and laws? Obviously not, there is an entire 9% of the population who are ethnically Egyptian but Christian...tracing their roots to the Christians of Roman Egypt, when Egypt's majority was, in fact, Christian. In fact, it is very much their nation. This is a question Egypt must consider...the Islamist potential. It should not be shunned to curry favor from an ignorant Western media. The West does NOT know everything, as dear Mr. Matt Bradley from the WSJ has proved.
What's better, the Islamist Democratic model does not have to necessarily not consider minority interest by default. The Egyptian revolution has evolved to describe the Coptics as "dahaya, victims, of the" rogue government to "shohada', martyrs." Indeed the Coptics have been accepted by their Muslim counterparts. But Marc Michael of Al-Jeezera makes a different argument, that is the Coptics are actually adopting an " Anglo-Saxon liberal thought" that "cheer[s] them to embrace their estrangement from Egyptian society, to value their alienation as an end in itself, and to seek the legal support of the state in establishing their difference as a social fact." So the future of a righteous Islamist Democratic state in Egypt, to live up to its potential as the ideal Islamist state, depends on a few conditions: 1. the Al Sami document must fail so the Egyptian constitution is preserved 2. the Coptics must compromise with the Muslims to create a fair Democratic state that is based on Islamist theory but considers equally the interest of the minorities, the Coptics. (After all, consideration is the most important thing in a democracy). 3. the West must stop making these assumptions that "Islamism" cannot be democracy. 4. Iran must reform its education system. Islamist democracy will allow for academics read in Islam and political, economic, etc theory will be able to optimize democracy in the middle east. If anything, it is the only hope for Middle East peace via an enlightened not passion-driven demos. This is key to the Tahrir Square revolution and, if successful in Egypt, the Arab Spring.
No comments:
Post a Comment