RSSВсички записи в "Turkey’s AKP" Категория

ИСЛЯМ, ДЕМОКРАЦИЯ & САЩ:

Фондация Кордоба

Абдула Фалик |

Въведение ,


Въпреки, че това е многогодишен и сложен дебат, Arches Quarterly преразглежда от богословска и практическа основа, важният дебат за връзката и съвместимостта между исляма и демокрацията, както е отекнало в дневния ред на Барак Обама за надежда и промяна. Докато мнозина празнуват възхода на Обама в Овалния кабинет като национален катарзис за САЩ, други остават по-малко оптимисти за промяна в идеологията и подхода на международната арена. Докато голяма част от напрежението и недоверието между мюсюлманския свят и САЩ може да се дължи на подхода за насърчаване на демокрацията, обикновено предпочитат диктатури и марионетни режими, които плащат на глас на демократичните ценности и правата на човека, вторичният трус от 9/11 наистина засили опасенията допълнително чрез позицията на Америка относно политическия ислям. Той създаде стена от негативизъм, както е намерено от worldpublicopinion.org, според което 67% от египтяните вярват, че в световен мащаб Америка играе „предимно негативна“ роля.
Следователно реакцията на Америка е подходяща. С избирането на Обама, мнозина по света възлагат надеждите си за развитие на по-малко войнствена, но по-справедлива външна политика спрямо мюсюлманския свят. Тестът за Обама, както обсъждаме, е как Америка и нейните съюзници насърчават демокрацията. Дали ще бъде улесняващо или налагащо?
освен това, може ли важното да бъде честен брокер в продължителни зони на конфликти? Привличане на експертиза и прозрение на prolifi
c учени, академици, опитни журналисти и политици, Arches Quarterly извежда на бял свят връзката между исляма и демокрацията и ролята на Америка – както и промените, направени от Обама, в търсене на общото. Анас Алтикрити, главният изпълнителен директор на Th e Cordoba Foundation дава началния гамбит за тази дискусия, където разсъждава върху надеждите и предизвикателствата, които лежат на пътя на Обама. След Алтикрити, бившият съветник на президента Никсън, Д-р Робърт Крейн предлага задълбочен анализ на ислямския принцип на правото на свобода. Ануар Ибрахим, бивш вицепремиер на Малайзия, обогатява дискусията с практическите реалности на прилагането на демокрацията в мюсюлманските доминиращи общества, а именно, в Индонезия и Малайзия.
Имаме и д-р Ширийн Хънтър, от Джорджтаунския университет, САЩ, който изследва мюсюлманските страни, изоставащи в демократизацията и модернизацията. Това е допълнено от писателя на тероризма, Обяснението на д-р Нафиз Ахмед за кризата на постмодерността и
крах на демокрацията. д-р Дауд Абдула (Директор на Middle East Media Monitor), Алън Харт (бивш кореспондент на ITN и BBC Panorama; автор на ционизма: Истинският враг на евреите) и Асем Сондос (Редактор на египетския седмичник Sawt Al Omma) да се съсредоточи върху Обама и неговата роля по отношение на насърчаването на демокрацията в мюсюлманския свят, както и отношенията на САЩ с Израел и Мюсюлманските братя.
Министър на външните работи, Малдивите, Ахмед Шахид спекулира с бъдещето на исляма и демокрацията; Cllr. Гери Маклохлайн
– член на Шин Фейн, който изтърпя четири години затвор за дейностите на ирландските републикански и активист на Гилфорд 4 и Бирмингам 6, отразява неотдавнашното си пътуване до Газа, където стана свидетел на въздействието на бруталността и несправедливостта, извършени срещу палестинците; Д-р Мари Брийн-Смит, Директорът на Центъра за изследване на радикализацията и съвременното политическо насилие обсъжда предизвикателствата на критично изследване на политическия терор; д-р Халид ал-Мубарак, писател и драматург, обсъжда перспективите за мир в Дарфур; и накрая журналистът и активист за правата на човека Ашур Шамис гледа критично на демократизацията и политизацията на мюсюлманите днес.
Надяваме се всичко това да бъде изчерпателно четене и източник за размисъл по въпроси, които засягат всички нас в нова зора на надеждата.
Благодаря ти

Ислямска политическа култура, Демокрация, и правата на човека

Даниеле. Цена

Твърди се, че ислямът улеснява авторитаризма, противоречи на ценностите на западните общества, и оказва значително влияние върху важни политически резултати в мюсюлманските нации. Следователно, учени, коментатори, а правителствените служители често посочват „ислямския фундаментализъм“ като следващата идеологическа заплаха за либералните демокрации. Тази гледка, въпреки това, се основава предимно на анализа на текстове, Ислямска политическа теория, и ad hoc проучвания на отделни страни, които не отчитат други фактори. Моето твърдение е, че текстовете и традициите на исляма, като тези на другите религии, може да се използва за подкрепа на различни политически системи и политики. Специфичните за страната и описателните проучвания не ни помагат да намерим модели, които ще ни помогнат да обясним различните взаимоотношения между исляма и политиката в страните от мюсюлманския свят. Следователно, нов подход към изучаването на
изисква се връзка между исляма и политиката.
Предлагам, чрез строга оценка на връзката между исляма, демокрация, и правата на човека на междунационално ниво, че твърде много се набляга на силата на исляма като политическа сила. Първо използвам сравнителни казуси, които се фокусират върху фактори, свързани с взаимодействието между ислямските групи и режими, икономически влияния, етнически разцепления, и социалното развитие, да се обясни разликата във влиянието на исляма върху политиката в осем нации. Аз твърдя, че голяма част от властта
приписван на исляма като движеща сила зад политиките и политическите системи в мюсюлманските нации, може да бъде обяснено по-добре от гореспоменатите фактори. аз също намирам, противно на общоприетото схващане, че нарастващата сила на ислямските политически групи често се свързва със скромно плурализиране на политическите системи.
Изградих индекс на ислямската политическа култура, въз основа на степента, в която се използва ислямското право и дали и, ако е така, как,западни идеи, институции, и се прилагат технологии, да се тества естеството на връзката между исляма и демокрацията и исляма и правата на човека. Този индикатор се използва в статистическия анализ, която включва извадка от двадесет и три предимно мюсюлмански държави и контролна група от двадесет и три немюсюлмански развиващи се нации. В допълнение към сравняването
ислямски нации към неислямски развиващи се нации, статистическият анализ ми позволява да контролирам влиянието на други променливи, за които е установено, че влияят на нивата на демокрация и защитата на индивидуалните права. Резултатът трябва да бъде по-реалистична и точна картина на влиянието на исляма върху политиката и политиките.

ТОЧНОСТ В ГЛОБАЛНАТА ВОЙНА СРЕЩУ ТЕРОРА:

Шерифа зухур

Седем години след септември 11, 2001 (9/11) атаки, много експерти смятат, че Ал Кайда си е възвърнала силата и че нейните подражатели или съдружници са по-смъртоносни от преди. Оценката на националното разузнаване на 2007 заяви, че Ал Кайда е по-опасна сега от преди 9/11.1 Емулаторите на Ал Кайда продължават да заплашват Запада, Средноизточен, и европейските нации, както в сюжета, осуетен през септември 2007 в Германия. Брус Ридел заявява: Благодарение до голяма степен на желанието на Вашингтон да влезе в Ирак, вместо да преследва лидерите на Ал Кайда, организацията вече има солидна база от операции в пустите земи на Пакистан и ефективен франчайз в Западен Ирак. Неговият обхват се разпространи в целия мюсюлмански свят и в Европа . . . Осама бин Ладен организира успешна пропагандна кампания. . . . Идеите му сега привличат повече последователи от всякога.
Вярно е, че в целия ислямски свят все още се появяват различни салафитско-джихадистки организации. Защо отговорите с големи ресурси на ислямисткия тероризъм, който наричаме глобален джихад, не се оказаха изключително ефективни?
Преминавайки към инструментите на „меката сила,” какво ще кажете за ефикасността на усилията на Запада за подкрепа на мюсюлманите в Глобалната война срещу тероризма (GWOT)? Защо Съединените щати спечелиха толкова малко „сърца и умове“ в широкия ислямски свят? Защо американските стратегически послания по този въпрос играят толкова зле в региона? Защо, въпреки широкото мюсюлманско неодобрение на екстремизма, както е показано в проучвания и официални изказвания на ключови мюсюлмански лидери, има подкрепата за бин Ладин действително се увеличи в Йордания и в Пакистан?
Тази монография няма да преразгледа произхода на ислямисткото насилие. Вместо това се занимава с вид концептуален провал, който погрешно изгражда GWOT и който обезкуражава мюсюлманите да го подкрепят. Те не са в състояние да се идентифицират с предложените преобразуващи мерки за противодействие, тъй като разпознават някои от основните си вярвания и институции като цели в
това начинание.
Няколко дълбоко проблематични тенденции объркват американските концептуализации на GWOT и стратегическите послания, създадени за борба с тази война. Тези се развиват от (1) постколониални политически подходи към мюсюлманите и мюсюлманските нации, които се различават значително и поради това произвеждат противоречиви и объркващи впечатления и ефекти; и (2) остатъчно генерализирано незнание и предразсъдъци към исляма и субрегионалните култури. Добавете към този американски гняв, страх, и безпокойство за смъртоносните събития на 9/11, и някои елементи, които, въпреки настояванията на по-хладните глави, държат мюсюлманите и тяхната религия отговорни за злодеянията на техните единоверци, или които намират за полезно да го направят по политически причини.

Islamist Opposition Parties and the Potential for EU Engagement

Тоби Арчър

Хайди Хуутанен

In light of the increasing importance of Islamist movements in the Muslim world and

the way that radicalisation has influenced global events since the turn of the century, it

is important for the EU to evaluate its policies towards actors within what can be loosely

termed the ‘Islamic world’. It is particularly important to ask whether and how to engage

with the various Islamist groups.

This remains controversial even within the EU. Some feel that the Islamic values that

lie behind Islamist parties are simply incompatible with western ideals of democracy and

човешки права, while others see engagement as a realistic necessity due to the growing

domestic importance of Islamist parties and their increasing involvement in international

affairs. Another perspective is that democratisation in the Muslim world would increase

European security. The validity of these and other arguments over whether and how the

EU should engage can only be tested by studying the different Islamist movements and

their political circumstances, country by country.

Democratisation is a central theme of the EU’s common foreign policy actions, as laid

out in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union. Many of the states considered in this

report are not democratic, or not fully democratic. In most of these countries, Islamist

parties and movements constitute a significant opposition to the prevailing regimes, и

in some they form the largest opposition bloc. European democracies have long had to

deal with governing regimes that are authoritarian, but it is a new phenomenon to press

for democratic reform in states where the most likely beneficiaries might have, from the

EU’s point of view, different and sometimes problematic approaches to democracy and its

related values, such as minority and women’s rights and the rule of law. These charges are

often laid against Islamist movements, so it is important for European policy-makers to

have an accurate picture of the policies and philosophies of potential partners.

Experiences from different countries tends to suggest that the more freedom Islamist

parties are allowed, the more moderate they are in their actions and ideas. In many

cases Islamist parties and groups have long since shifted away from their original aim

of establishing an Islamic state governed by Islamic law, and have come to accept basic

democratic principles of electoral competition for power, the existence of other political

competitors, and political pluralism.

Political Islam in the Middle East

Са Кнудсен

This report provides an introduction to selected aspects of the phenomenon commonly

referred to as “political Islam”. The report gives special emphasis to the Middle East, в

particular the Levantine countries, and outlines two aspects of the Islamist movement that may

be considered polar opposites: democracy and political violence. In the third section the report

reviews some of the main theories used to explain the Islamic resurgence in the Middle East

(Figure 1). In brief, the report shows that Islam need not be incompatible with democracy and

that there is a tendency to neglect the fact that many Middle Eastern countries have been

engaged in a brutal suppression of Islamist movements, causing them, some argue, to take up

arms against the state, and more rarely, foreign countries. The use of political violence is

widespread in the Middle East, but is neither illogical nor irrational. In many cases even

Islamist groups known for their use of violence have been transformed into peaceful political

parties successfully contesting municipal and national elections. Nonetheless, the Islamist

revival in the Middle East remains in part unexplained despite a number of theories seeking to

account for its growth and popular appeal. In general, most theories hold that Islamism is a

reaction to relative deprivation, especially social inequality and political oppression. Alternative

theories seek the answer to the Islamist revival within the confines of religion itself and the

powerful, evocative potential of religious symbolism.

The conclusion argues in favour of moving beyond the “gloom and doom” approach that

portrays Islamism as an illegitimate political expression and a potential threat to the West (“Old

Islamism”), and of a more nuanced understanding of the current democratisation of the Islamist

movement that is now taking place throughout the Middle East (“New Islamism”). This

importance of understanding the ideological roots of the “New Islamism” is foregrounded

along with the need for thorough first-hand knowledge of Islamist movements and their

adherents. As social movements, its is argued that more emphasis needs to be placed on

understanding the ways in which they have been capable of harnessing the aspirations not only

of the poorer sections of society but also of the middle class.

STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING POLITICAL ISLAM

SHADI HAMID

АМАНДА КАДЛЕЦ

Political Islam is the single most active political force in the Middle East today. Its future is intimately tied to that of the region. If the United States and the European Union are committed to supporting political reform in the region, they will need to devise concrete, coherent strategies for engaging Islamist groups. Yet, Съединените Щати. has generally been unwilling to open a dialogue with these movements. по същия начин, EU engagement with Islamists has been the exception, not the rule. Where low-level contacts exist, they mainly serve information-gathering purposes, not strategic objectives. The U.S. and EU have a number of programs that address economic and political development in the region – among them the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Union for the Mediterranean, and the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) – yet they have little to say about how the challenge of Islamist political opposition fits within broader regional objectives. нас. and EU democracy assistance and programming are directed almost entirely to either authoritarian governments themselves or secular civil society groups with minimal support in their own societies.
The time is ripe for a reassessment of current policies. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, supporting Middle East democracy has assumed a greater importance for Western policymakers, who see a link between lack of democracy and political violence. Greater attention has been devoted to understanding the variations within political Islam. The new American administration is more open to broadening communication with the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the vast majority of mainstream Islamist organizations – including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan’s Islamic Action Front (IAF), Morocco’s Justice and Development Party (PJD), the Islamic Constitutional Movement of Kuwait, and the Yemeni Islah Party – have increasingly made support for political reform and democracy a central component in their political platforms. In addition, many have signaled strong interest in opening dialogue with U.S. and EU governments.
The future of relations between Western nations and the Middle East may be largely determined by the degree to which the former engage nonviolent Islamist parties in a broad dialogue about shared interests and objectives. There has been a recent proliferation of studies on engagement with Islamists, but few clearly address what it might entail in practice. As Zoé Nautré, visiting fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, puts it, “the EU is thinking about engagement but doesn’t really know how.”1 In the hope of clarifying the discussion, we distinguish between three levels of “engagement,” each with varying means and ends: low-level contacts, strategic dialogue, and partnership.

Islamist Parties : participation without power

Malika Zeghal

Over the last two decades, social and political movements grounding their ideologies in references to Islam have sought to become legal political parties in many countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Some of these Islamist movements have been authorized to take part lawfully in electoral competition. Among the best known is Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (ПСР), which won a parliamentary majority in 2002 and has led the government ever since. Morocco’s own Party of Justice and Development (PJD) has been legal since the mid- 1990s and commands a significant bloc of seats in Parliament. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has never been authorized to form a political party, but in spite of state repression it has successfully run candidates as nominal independents in both national and local elections.
Since the early 1990s, this trend has gone hand-in-hand with official policies of limited political liberalization. Together, the two trends have occasioned a debate about whether these movements are committed to “democracy.” A vast literature has sprung up to underline the paradoxes as well as the possible risks and benefits of including Islamist parties in the electoral process. The main paradigm found in this body of writing focuses on the consequences that might ensue when Islamists use democratic instruments, and seeks to divine the “true” intentions that Islamists will manifest if they come to power.

ISLAMIST MOVEMENTS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN THE ARAB WORLD: Exploring the Gray Zones

Нейтън Дж. Кафяво, Амр Хамзави,

Марина Отауей

During the last decade, Islamist movements have established themselves as major political players in the Middle East. Together with the governments, Islamist movements, moderate as well as radical, will determine how the politics of the region unfold in the foreseeable future. Th ey have shown the ability not only to craft messages with widespread popular appeal but also, and most importantly, to create organizations with genuine social bases and develop coherent political strategies. Other parties,
by and large, have failed on all accounts.
Th e public in the West and, in particular, the United States, has only become aware of the importance of Islamist movements after dramatic events, such as the revolution in Iran and the assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat in Egypt. Attention has been far more sustained since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As a result, Islamist movements are widely regarded as dangerous and hostile. While such a characterization is accurate regarding organizations at the radical end of the Islamist spectrum, which are dangerous because of their willingness to resort to indiscriminate violence in pursuing their goals, it is not an accurate characterization of the many groups that have renounced or avoided violence. Because terrorist organizations pose an immediate
threat, въпреки това, policy makers in all countries have paid disproportionate attention to the violent organizations.
It is the mainstream Islamist organizations, not the radical ones, that will have the greatest impact on the future political evolution of the Middle East. Th e radicals’ grandiose goals of re-establishing a caliphate uniting the entire Arab world, or even of imposing on individual Arab countries laws and social customs inspired by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam are simply too far removed from today’s reality to be realized. Th is does not mean that terrorist groups are not dangerous—they could cause great loss of life even in the pursuit of impossible goals—but that they are unlikely to change the face of the Middle East. Mainstream Islamist organizations are generally a diff erent matter. Th ey already have had a powerful impact on social customs in many countries, halting and reversing secularist trends and changing the way many Arabs dress and behave. And their immediate political goal, to become a powerful force by participating in the normal politics of their country, is not an impossible one. It is already being realized in countries such as Morocco, Йордания, and even Egypt, which still bans all Islamist political organizations but now has eighty-eight Muslim Brothers in the Parliament. Политика, not violence, is what gives mainstream Islamists their infl uence.

ISLAMIST RADICALISATION

PREFACE
RICHARD YOUNGS
MICHAEL EMERSON

Issues relating to political Islam continue to present challenges to European foreign policies in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). As EU policy has sought to come to terms with such challenges during the last decade or so political Islam itself has evolved. Experts point to the growing complexity and variety of trends within political Islam. Some Islamist organisations have strengthened their commitment to democratic norms and engaged fully in peaceable, mainstream national politics. Others remain wedded to violent means. And still others have drifted towards a more quietist form of Islam, disengaged from political activity. Political Islam in the MENA region presents no uniform trend to European policymakers. Analytical debate has grown around the concept of ‘radicalisation’. This in turn has spawned research on the factors driving ‘de-radicalisation’, and conversely, ‘re-radicalisation’. Much of the complexity derives from the widely held view that all three of these phenomena are occurring at the same time. Even the terms themselves are contested. It has often been pointed out that the moderate–radical dichotomy fails fully to capture the nuances of trends within political Islam. Some analysts also complain that talk of ‘radicalism’ is ideologically loaded. At the level of terminology, we understand radicalisation to be associated with extremism, but views differ over the centrality of its religious–fundamentalist versus political content, and over whether the willingness to resort to violence is implied or not.

Such differences are reflected in the views held by the Islamists themselves, as well as in the perceptions of outsiders.

Political Islam and European Foreign Policy

POLITICAL ISLAM AND THE EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY

MICHAEL EMERSON

RICHARD YOUNGS

Since 2001 and the international events that ensued the nature of the relationship between the West and political Islam has become a definingissue for foreign policy. In recent years a considerable amount of research and analysis has been undertaken on the issue of political Islam. This has helped to correct some of the simplistic and alarmist assumptions previously held in the West about the nature of Islamist values and intentions. Parallel to this, the European Union (EU) has developed a number of policy initiatives primarily the European Neighbourhood Policy(ENP) that in principle commit to dialogue and deeper engagement all(non-violent) political actors and civil society organisations within Arab countries. Yet many analysts and policy-makers now complain of a certain a trophy in both conceptual debate and policy development. It has been established that political Islam is a changing landscape, deeply affected bya range of circumstances, but debate often seems to have stuck on the simplistic question of ‘are Islamists democratic?’ Many independent analysts have nevertheless advocated engagement with Islamists, but theactual rapprochement between Western governments and Islamist organisations remains limited .

Islamist Parties , ARE THEY DEMOCRATS? DOES it matter ?

Тарек Масуд

Driven by a sense that “the Islamists are coming,” journalists and policy makers have been engaged of late in fevered speculation over whether Islamist parties such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or Palestine’s Hamas really believe in democracy. While I attempt to outline the boundaries of the Islamist democratic commitment, I think that peering into the Islamist soul is a misuse of energies. The Islamists are not coming. освен това, as Adam Przeworski and others have argued, commitments to democracy are more often born of environmental constraints than of true belief. Instead of worrying whether Islamists are real democrats,
our goal should be to help fortify democratic and liberal institutions and actors so that no group—Islamist or otherwise—can subvert them.
But what is this movement over whose democratic bona fides we worry? Islamism is a slippery concept. Например, if we label as Islamist those parties that call for the application of shari‘a, we must exclude Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (which is widely considered Islamist) and include Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party (which actively represses Islamists). Instead of becoming mired in definitional issues, we would do better to focus on a set of political parties that have grown from the same historical roots, derive many of their goals and positions from the same body of ideas, and maintain organizational ties to one another—that is, those parties that spring from the international MB. These include the Egyptian mother organization (founded in 1928), but also Hamas, Jordan’s Islamic Action Front, Algeria’s Movement for a Peaceful Society, the Iraqi Islamic Party, Lebanon’s Islamic Group, and others.

Counter Transformations in the Center and Periphery of Turkish Society and the Rise of the Justice and Development Party

Рамин Ахмадов

The election results on November 3, 2002, which brought the Justice and Development Party into power, shocked many, but for varying reasons. Afterwards, some became more hopeful about future of their country, while others became even more doubtful and anxious, since for them the “republican regime” came under threat. These opposing responses, along with the perceptions that fueled them, neatly describe the two very different worlds that currently exist within Turkish society, and so it is important to think through many of the contested issues that have arisen as a result of these shifting political winds.
The winning Justice and Development Party (JDP) was established in 2001 by a group of politicians under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, many of whom split from the religio-political movement of Necmetiin Erbakan, the National Outlook Movement, and the Welfare Party. Interestingly, in less than two years after its establishment, and at the first general election it participated in, the JDP received 34.29 % of the vote when all other established parties fell under the 10 % threshold. The only exception to this was the Republican People’s Party (19.38 %). The JDP captured 365 извън 550 seats in the parliament and therefore was given the opportunity of establishing the government alone, which is exactly what happened. Two years later, in the 2004 local elections, the JDP increased its votes to 41.46 %, while the RPP slightly decreased to 18.27 %, and the Nationalist Action Party increased to 10.10 % (from 8.35 % в 2002). Накрая, in the most recent general elections in Turkey in 2007, which was marked by intense debate over presidential elections and an online military note, the JDP won nearly half of all votes, 46.58 %, and began its second term in power.

Turkey and the EU: A Survey on Turkish MPs’ EU Vision

Кудрет Бюлбюл

Even though Turkey’s dream for being a member of European Union (EU) dates back to late 1950s, it can be said that this process has gained its momentum since the governing period of Justice and Development Party, which is shortly called AK party or AKP in Turkish. When compared with earlier periods, the enormous accomplishments during the AK party’s rule are recognized by domestic and European authorities alike. In the parallel of gigantic steps towardsthe European membership, which is now a real possibility for Turkey, there have been increasingdebates about this process. While some European authorities generate policies over Cyprus issueagainst Turkey’s membership, some others mainly lead by German Christian Democrats proposea privileged status rather than full membership. Turkish authorities do not stay silent over thesearguments, and probably first time the Turkish foreign minister can articulate that “should they(the EU) propose anything short of full membership, or any new conditions, we will walk away.And this time it will be for good” (The Economist 2005 30-31) After October third, Even though Mr. Abdullah Gül, who is the foreign minister of the AK party govenrment, persistentlyemphasizes that there is no such a concept so-called “privileged partnership” in the framework document, (Milliyet, 2005) the prime minister of France puts forward that this option is actually one of the possible alternatives.

zealous democrats : ISLAMISM AND DEMOCRACY IN EGYPT, INDONESIA AND TURKEY

Anthony Bubalo
Greg Fealy
Уит Мейсън

The fear of Islamists coming to power through elections has long been an obstacle to democratisation in authoritarian states of the Muslim world. Islamists have been, and continue to be, the best organised and most credible opposition movements in many of these countries.

They are also commonly, if not always correctly, assumed to be in the best position to capitalise on any democratic opening of their political systems. По същото време, the commitment of Islamists to democracy is often questioned. Наистина, when it comes to democracy, Islamism’s intellectual heritage and historical record (in terms of the few examples of Islamist-led states, such as Sudan and Iran) have not been reassuring. The apparent strength of Islamist movements, combined with suspicions about Islamism’s democratic compatibility, has been used by authoritarian governments as an argument to defl ect both domestic and international calls for political reform and democratisation.

Domestically, secular liberals have preferred to settle for nominally secular dictatorships over potentially religious ones. Internationally, Western governments have preferred friendly autocrats to democratically elected, but potentially hostile, Islamist-led governments.

The goal of this paper is to re-examine some of the assumptions about the risks of democratisation in authoritarian countries of the Muslim world (and not just in the Middle East) where strong Islamist movements or parties exist.

Success of Turkey’s AK Party must not dilute worries over Arab Islamists

Mona Eltahawy

It has been unsurprising that since Abdullah Gul became president of Turkey on 27 August that much misguided analyses has been wasted on howIslamistscan pass the democracy test. His victory was bound to be described as theIslamistrouting of Turkish politics. And Arab Islamistsin the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, their supporters and defenderswere always going to point to Turkey and tell us that we’ve been wrong all along to worry about the Arab Islamistalleged flirtation with democracy. “It worked in Turkey, it can work in the Arab world,” they would try to assure us.Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.Firstly, Gul is not an Islamist. His wife’s headscarf might be the red cloth to the bull of the secular nationalists in Turkey, but neither Gul nor the AK Party which swept parliamentary elections in Turkey in June, can be called Islamists. In fact, so little does the AK Party share with the Muslim Brotherhoodaside from the common faith of its membersthat it’s absurd to use its success in Turkish politics as a reason to reduce fears over the Mus-lim Brotherhood’s role in Arab politics.The three litmus tests of Islamism will prove my point: women and sex, the “Запад”, and Israel.As a secular Muslim who has vowed never to live in Egypt should Islamists ever take power, I never take lightly any attempt to blend religion with politics. So it has been with a more than skeptical eye that I’ve followed Turkish politics over the past few years.

Claiming the Center: Political Islam in Transition

Джон Л.. Еспозито

In the 1990s political Islam, what some callIslamic fundamentalism,” remains a major presence in government and in oppositional politics from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Political Islam in power and in politics has raised many issues and questions: “Is Islam antithetical to modernization?,” “Are Islam and democracy incompatible?,” “What are the implications of an Islamic government for pluralism, minority and women’s rights,” “How representative are Islamists,” “Are there Islamic moderates?,” “Should the West fear a transnational Islamic threat or clash of civilizations?” Contemporary Islamic Revivalism The landscape of the Muslim world today reveals the emergence of new Islamic republics (Иран, Sudan, Афганистан), the proliferation of Islamic movements that function as major political and social actors within existing systems, and the confrontational politics of radical violent extremists._ In contrast to the 1980s when political Islam was simply equated with revolutionary Iran or clandestine groups with names like Islamic jihad or the Army of God, the Muslim world in the 1990s is one in which Islamists have participated in the electoral process and are visible as prime ministers, cabinet officers, speakers of national assemblies, parliamentarians, and mayors in countries as diverse as Egypt, Sudan, Турция, Иран, Ливан, Kuwait, Yemen, Йордания, Пакистан, Bangladesh, Малайзия, Индонезия, and Israel/Palestine. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, political Islam continues to be a major force for order and disorder in global politics, one that participates in the political process but also in acts of terrorism, a challenge to the Muslim world and to the West. Understanding the nature of political Islam today, and in particular the issues and questions that have emerged from the experience of the recent past, remains critical for governments, policymakers, and students of international politics alike.