RSSВсички записи в "Турция" 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.

EGYPT’S MUSLIM BROTHERS: CONFRONTATION OR INTEGRATION?

Research

The Society of Muslim Brothers’ success in the November-December 2005 elections for the People’s Assembly sent shockwaves through Egypt’s political system. In response, the regime cracked down on the movement, harassed other potential rivals and reversed its fledging reform process. This is dangerously short-sighted. There is reason to be concerned about the Muslim Brothers’ political program, and they owe the people genuine clarifications about several of its aspects. But the ruling National Democratic
Party’s (NDP) refusal to loosen its grip risks exacerbating tensions at a time of both political uncertainty surrounding the presidential succession and serious socio-economic unrest. Though this likely will be a prolonged, gradual process, the regime should take preliminary steps to normalise the Muslim Brothers’ participation in political life. The Muslim Brothers, whose social activities have long been tolerated but whose role in formal politics is strictly limited, won an unprecedented 20 per cent of parliamentary seats in the 2005 Избори. They did so despite competing for only a third of available seats and notwithstanding considerable obstacles, including police repression and electoral fraud. This success confirmed their position as an extremely wellorganised and deeply rooted political force. По същото време, it underscored the weaknesses of both the legal opposition and ruling party. The regime might well have wagered that a modest increase in the Muslim Brothers’ parliamentary representation could be used to stoke fears of an Islamist takeover and thereby serve as a reason to stall reform. If so, the strategy is at heavy risk of backfiring.

Ислям и демокрация: Текст, Традиция, и История

Ахрар Ахмад

Popular stereotypes in the West tend to posit a progressive, rational, and free West against a backward, oppressive, and threatening Islam. Public opinion polls conducted in the United States during the 1990s revealed a consistent pattern of Americans labeling Muslims as “religious fanatics” and considering Islam’s ethos as fundamentally “anti-democratic.”1 These characterizations
and misgivings have, for obvious reasons, significantly worsened since the tragedy of 9/11. въпреки това, these perceptions are not reflected merely in the popular consciousness or crude media representations. Respected scholars also have contributed to this climate of opinion by writing about the supposedly irreconcilable differences between Islam and the West, the famous “clash of civilizations” that is supposed to be imminent and inevitable, and about the seeming incompatibility between Islam and democracy. Например, Professor Peter Rodman worries that “we are challenged from the outside by a militant atavistic force driven by hatred of all Western political thought harking back to age-old grievances against Christendom.” Dr. Daniel Pipes proclaims that the Muslims challenge the West more profoundly than the communists ever did, for “while the Communists disagree with our policies, the fundamentalist Muslims despise our whole way of life.” Professor Bernard Lewis warns darkly about “the historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo–Christian heritage, our secular present, and the expansion of both.” Professor Amos Perlmutter asks: “Is Islam, fundamentalist or otherwise, compatible with human-rights oriented Western style representative democracy? The answer is an emphatic NO.” And Professor Samuel Huntington suggests with a flourish that “the problem is not Islamic fundamentalism, but Islam itself.” It would be intellectually lazy and simple-minded to dismiss their positions as based merely on spite or prejudice. In fact, if one ignores some rhetorical overkill, some of their charges, though awkward for Muslims, are relevant to a discussion of the relationship between Islam and democracy in the modern world. Например, the position of women or sometimes non-Muslims in some Muslim countries is problematic in terms of the supposed legal equality of all people in a democracy. по същия начин, the intolerance directed by some Muslims against writers (e.g., Salman Rushdie in the UK, Taslima Nasrin in Bangladesh, and Professor Nasr Abu Zaid in Egypt) ostensibly jeopardizes the principle of free speech, which is essential to a democracy.
It is also true that less than 10 of the more than 50 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have institutionalized democratic principles or processes as understood in the West, and that too, only tentatively. Накрая, the kind of internal stability and external peace that is almost a prerequisite for a democracy to function is vitiated by the turbulence of internal implosion or external aggression evident in many Muslim countries today (e.g., Сомалия, Sudan, Индонезия, Пакистан, Ирак, Афганистан, Алжир, and Bosnia).

GLOBALIZATION AND POLITICAL ISLAM: THE SOCIAL BASES OF TURKEY’S WELFARE PARTY

Халдун Гулалп

Political Islam has gained heightened visibility in recent decades in Turkey. Large numbers of female students have begun to demonstrate their commitment by wearing the banned Islamic headdress on university campuses, and influential pro-Islamist TV
channels have proliferated. This paper focuses on the Welfare (Refah) Party as the foremost institutional representative of political Islam in Turkey.
The Welfare Party’s brief tenure in power as the leading coalition partner from mid-1996 to mid-1997 was the culmination of a decade of steady growth that was aided by other Islamist organizations and institutions. These organizations and institutions
included newspapers and publishing houses that attracted Islamist writers, numerous Islamic foundations, an Islamist labor-union confederation, and an Islamist businessmen’s association. These institutions worked in tandem with, and in support of, Welfare as the undisputed leader and representative of political Islam in Turkey, even though they had their own particularistic goals and ideals, which often diverged from Welfare’s political projects. Focusing on the Welfare Party, then, allows for an analysis of the wider social base upon which the Islamist political movement rose in Turkey. Since Welfare’s ouster from power and its eventual closure, the Islamist movement has been in disarray. This paper will, therefore, be confined to the Welfare Party period.
Welfare’s predecessor, the National Salvation Party, was active in the 1970s but was closed down by the military regime in 1980. Welfare was founded in 1983 and gained great popularity in the 1990s. Starting with a 4.4 percent vote in the municipal elections of 1984, the Welfare Party steadily increased its showing and multiplied its vote nearly five times in twelve years. It alarmed Turkey’s secular establishment first in the municipal elections of 1994, с 19 percent of all votes nationwide and the mayor’s seats in both Istanbul and Ankara, then in the general elections of 1995 when it won a plurality with 21.4 percent of the national vote. Nevertheless, the Welfare Party was only briefly able to lead a coalition government in partnership with the right-wing True Path Party of Tansu C¸ iller.

Мюсюлмански архипелаг

Max L. Брутно

Тази книга се създава много години, както обяснява авторът в своя Предговор, въпреки че той написа по-голямата част от действителния текст през годината си като старши научен сътрудник в Центъра за стратегически разузнавателни изследвания. Авторът е бил дълги години декан на Школата по разузнаване в Съвместния колеж за военно разузнаване. Въпреки че изглежда, че книгата е можела да бъде написана от всеки добър историк или регионален специалист от Югоизточна Азия, тази работа е осветена от повече от три десетилетия на работа на автора в националната разузнавателна общност. Неговият регионален опит често се прилага при специални оценки за Общността. С познаване на исляма, несравнимо сред връстниците му, и неутолима жажда за определяне как целите на тази религия могат да се играят в области, далеч от фокуса на вниманието на повечето политици в момента, авторът се възползва максимално от тази възможност, за да запознае разузнавателната общност и по-широка читателска аудитория със стратегическото оценяване на даден регион в разгара на помирението на светските и религиозните сили.
Тази публикация е одобрена за неограничено разпространение от Службата за преглед на сигурността, Министерство на отбраната.

Democracy in Islamic Political Thought

Azzam S. Тамими

Democracy has preoccupied Arab political thinkers since the dawn of the modern Arab renaissance about two centuries ago. Since then, the concept of democracy has changed and developed under the influence of a variety of social and political developments.The discussion of democracy in Arab Islamic literature can be traced back to Rifa’a Tahtawi, the father of Egyptian democracy according to Lewis Awad,[3] who shortly after his return to Cairo from Paris published his first book, Takhlis Al-Ibriz Ila Talkhis Bariz, в 1834. The book summarized his observations of the manners and customs of the modern French,[4] and praised the concept of democracy as he saw it in France and as he witnessed its defence and reassertion through the 1830 Revolution against King Charles X.[5] Tahtawi tried to show that the democratic concept he was explaining to his readers was compatible with the law of Islam. He compared political pluralism to forms of ideological and jurisprudential pluralism that existed in the Islamic experience:
Religious freedom is the freedom of belief, of opinion and of sect, provided it does not contradict the fundamentals of religion . . . The same would apply to the freedom of political practice and opinion by leading administrators, who endeavour to interpret and apply rules and provisions in accordance with the laws of their own countries. Kings and ministers are licensed in the realm of politics to pursue various routes that in the end serve one purpose: good administration and justice.[6] One important landmark in this regard was the contribution of Khairuddin At-Tunisi (1810- 99), leader of the 19th-century reform movement in Tunisia, who, в 1867, formulated a general plan for reform in a book entitled Aqwam Al-Masalik Fi Taqwim Al- Mamalik (The Straight Path to Reforming Governments). The main preoccupation of the book was in tackling the question of political reform in the Arab world. While appealing to politicians and scholars of his time to seek all possible means in order to improve the status of the
community and develop its civility, he warned the general Muslim public against shunning the experiences of other nations on the basis of the misconception that all the writings, inventions, experiences or attitudes of non-Muslims should be rejected or disregarded.
Khairuddin further called for an end to absolutist rule, which he blamed for the oppression of nations and the destruction of civilizations.

Ислямска политическа култура, Демокрация, и правата на човека

Даниеле. Цена

Твърди се, че ислямът улеснява авторитаризма, contradicts the

values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes
in Muslim nations. Следователно, учени, коментатори, and government
officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next
ideological threat to liberal democracies. Тази гледка, въпреки това, is based primarily
on the analysis of texts, Ислямска политическа теория, and ad hoc studies
of individual countries, които не отчитат други фактори. It is my contention
that the texts and traditions of Islam, като тези на другите религии,
може да се използва за подкрепа на различни политически системи и политики. Country
specific and descriptive studies do not help us to find patterns that will help
us explain the varying relationships between Islam and politics across the
countries of the Muslim world. 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, that too much
emphasis is being placed on the power of Islam as a political force. I first
use comparative case studies, which focus on factors relating to the interplay
between Islamic groups and regimes, икономически влияния, етнически разцепления,

и социалното развитие, to explain the variance in the influence of

Islam on politics across eight nations.

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.

Resolving America’s Islamist Dilemma: Lessons from South and Southeast Asia

Шади Хамид
нас. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East have long been paralyzed by the “Islamist dilemma”: in theory, we want democracy, but, in practice, fear that Islamist parties will be the prime beneficiaries of any political opening. The most tragic manifestation of this was the Algerian debacle of 1991 и 1992, when the United States stood silently while the staunchly secular military canceled elections after an Islamist party won a parliamentary majority. More recently, the Bush administration backed away from its “freedom agenda” after Islamists did surprisingly well in elections throughout region, including in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories.
But even our fear of Islamist parties—and the resulting refusal to engage with them—has itself been inconsistent, holding true for some countries but not others. The more that a country is seen as vital to American national security interests, the less willing the United States has been to accept Islamist groups having a prominent political role there. въпреки това, in countries seen as less strategically relevant, and where less is at stake, the United States has occasionally taken a more nuanced approach. But it is precisely where more is at stake that recognizing a role for nonviolent Islamists is most important, и, here, American policy continues to fall short.
Throughout the region, the United States has actively supported autocratic regimes and given the green light for campaigns of repression against groups such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most influential political movement in the region. In March 2008, during what many observers consider to be the worst period of anti-Brotherhood repression since the 1960s, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waived a $100 million congressionally mandated reduction of military aid to Egypt. The situation in Jordan is similar. The Bush administration and the Democratic congress have hailed the country as a “model” of Arab reform at precisely the same time that it has been devising new ways to manipulate the electoral process to limit Islamist representation, and just as it held elections plagued by widespread allegations of outright fraud
and rigging.1 This is not a coincidence. Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab countries that have signed peace treaties with Israel. освен това, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.

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.