View Point                                                                         Abid Ullah Jan

Seize the future in NWFP

The news of Americans bombing mosques, raiding homes and FBI looking for more active role in Pakistan's internal affairs are making far fewer concerned-headlines than the fear of Shari'ah bill. The phrase, "Shari'ah coming to town," sounds like an advertisement of some horror movie like Dracula, Frankenstein, or Wolfman.

To the contrary, it is a great opportunity for Muslims to seize the future in NWFP, provided they do not get lost in the headlines. They have to zoom out and look at what is happening around on global scale and what role an otherwise insignificant NWFP can play.

NWFP is not in the news because the centre and province are going in opposite directions. No one cares if elected government in the province is ordered to pack up tomorrow. From the opposition leaders in Pakistan to the self-proclaimed moderate leaders abroad, almost all Muslims admit that the real concept of Islam has to be protected and promoted.

As portrayed, the problem does not lie in whether MMA would use Shari'ah as a tool of oppression or justice. The fear is not that MMA would not be able to deal with the complexities of a plethora of issues in a world fast moving towards globalization. Even the fear of Talibanisation is not genuine. The problem is that the prospects an alternative to the status quo of democracy need elimination and MMA provides a perfect opportunity as a scapegoat.

The actual fear is that NWFP might become an incubator for developing a governing mechanism, which might serve as a model for an Islamic state. It may sound utopian, but for the stakeholders in democracy, it is a mini-Afghanistan all over again. "Talibanisation," as they project it, might not happen at all. However, something to scare the public is there already. It will sound utopian as long as we look at it from the perspective of a person lost in the headlines, or someone not willing to remove the blinders of secularism, or someone refusing to come out of the wonderland of liberal democracy.

Encouraged by the events of September 11 and the U.S. preparation for invading and occupying Afghanistan, Francis Fukuyama declared in an article in the Wall Street Journal on October 5, 2001, that his "end of history" thesis remains valid twelve years after he first presented it in 1989. Fukuyama's core argument was that after the defeat of Communism and National Socialism, no serious ideological competitor to Western-style liberal democracy was likely to emerge in the future. Thus, in terms of political philosophy, liberal democracy is the end of the evolutionary process.

There is nothing beyond liberal democracy "towards which we could expect to evolve." Fukuyama concludes by stating that there will be challenges from those who resist progress, "but time and resources are on the side of modernity."

Indeed, but are the principles of democracy and practices of its proponents on the side of liberal democracy? No doubt, Fukuyama is very likely right that the current crisis will be overcome, and that, in the near future, there will be no serious ideological challenge. Nevertheless, there already are alternative ideologies to liberal democracy within and outside the West that for decades have been steadily, and almost imperceptibly, evolving. The question is not whether democracy, crippled by its own principles and practitioners, will survive in its present form. It is rather: what will ultimately prevail?

So, the real fear is about what is going to prevail. This fear does not allow the stakeholders in liberal democracy to get something evolved in the name of Islam, whether that is in an independent state, such as Afghanistan, or a dependent province as we see in NWFP. They understand that if the Islamic Shari'ah means merely the payment of Zakat and the offering of five prayers, even Muslims in occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine and elsewhere are free to perform these rituals as they like. Establishing a just social, political and economic order, running affairs of a people according to Islam, and providing a conducive environment for implementation of Shari'ah is the actual arduous task that will set a precedent as well as provide an alternative to the moribund democracy.

A growing number of analysts are coming out to say loud and clear that it is not democracy that is practiced or preached by its leading promoters. Like many others, John Gerassi of a Canada based research organisation recently declared: "It is now time to say and act upon the fact that the United States, as a state, is Fascist." (1) Those who jump to the conclusions know very well that the much-trumpeted "harsh rule" of the Taliban would look like the most liberal rule only if we compare it with the U.S.-funded and fully supported occupation, repressive and apartheid policies of Israeli government. (2) Not to speak of what is happening in Afghanistan for the last two years and what has just begun in Iraq. We must not forget that there is no Shari'ah enforced in Chechnya, Kashmir, Algeria, etc. Why should the imaginary fear of Islamic system outweigh the real atrocities going on before our eyes?

Undoubtedly, due to the Taliban's ignorance of the world politics, their over-literal focus on individual Qur'anic verses and ahadith helped the West obscure the larger picture. Whatever weaknesses the Taliban had in their rule were bound to end with their increasing interaction with others and learning statecraft. That is why the objective of stakeholders in democracy was not to let them interact and evolve a governing mechanism in the first place. Still, Islam is the scapegoat for their half-backed attempts at implementing Islam.

It can be very easily and logically proved that democracy has not as much outlived its utility as much it is manipulated by select interest groups. Its evolution into a totalist ideology and authoritarian state structure is very obvious. The principle of secularism and false notions of freedom have sapped the soul and wrecked the social fabric of secular societies. No one could believe in the unraveling of Soviet Union even a few months before its real disintegration. So no wonder if the end of democracy is a laughable idea for many.

Its translation into reality, at least in Muslim countries, is possible through full input for developing NWFP into a model society based on the principles of Islam. Instead of isolating or demonizing MMA, like the Taliban, there should be a generous exchange of ideas with the leadership in NWFP. If we have a better picture of an Islamic society and systems in mind, let us share it with the concerned authorities for course correction and controlled evolution. Let us help MMA evolve a system that is acceptable not only to MMA but to the great majority of Muslims. Throwing baby with bathwater has not helped any of the secular countries, nor will it help anyone else.

One thing we must not forget. The time for an alternative to the status quo of liberal democracy has come. Irrespective of our assistance to MMA and irrespective of its success or failure, the future belongs to Islam in Muslim lands. Democracy is just one of the many tools of the overall just order of Islam. Analysts such as John L. Esposito and Noah Feldman have foreseen this eventuality. Martin Kramer summarizes their thought like this: "Islamists…are actually the best hope for democracy in the Middle East. Leading Islamist thinkers want democracy, and if Islamist parties were allowed to take power-which they certainly would do in free elections-it would be an improvement over the situation today. Even if Islamists declared 'Islamic' states on assuming power, these regimes would probably be more or less democratic, provided you don't insist on a narrow, culture-bound definition of democracy. The United States is making a big mistake by allying itself with autocratic rulers in the region, and it's betraying its values too. It should encourage inevitable change in the Islamists' favor, which is really in the U.S. interest." (3)

Their thought needs just minor correction. It is not only Islamists, but Muslims want to live their lives according to Islam and if given a chance, both the artificial extremes - the so labeled "fundamentalists" and the self-proclaimed "moderates" - will automatically disappear. Giving Muslim a chance means, saying good-bye to the undue support extended to the so-called pro-West and the undue demonization of the "anti-West" elements, both of which can be counted on fingertips. Actually both of these extremes have some interests, other than democracy, modernity or Islam, at stake. Giving majority of Muslims a chance to build their systems, starting with incubators, such as NWFP, would prove that the differences among these extremes are all but insignificant. However, their positive contribution, above their personal interests, is of vital importance for a balanced alternative for human governance.