RSSВсички записи, маркирани с: "Малайзия"

Ислямът и създаването на държавна власт

seyyed vali reza nasr

В 1979 Генерал Мохамед Зия ул-Хак, военният владетел на Пакистан, обяви, че Пакистан ще стане ислямска държава. Ислямските ценности и норми биха послужили като основа на националната идентичност, закон, икономика, и социалните отношения, и би вдъхновил всички политики. В 1980 Махатхир Мохамед |, новият премиер на Малайзия, въведе подобен широкообхватен план за закрепване на изготвянето на държавна политика в ислямските ценности, и да приведе законите и икономическите практики на своята страна в съответствие с учението на исляма. Защо тези владетели избраха пътя на “ислямизацията” за своите страни? И как някогашните светски постколониални държави станаха агенти на ислямизацията и предвестник на „истинската“ ислямска държава?
Малайзия и Пакистан след края на 70 -те - началото на 80 -те години следват уникален път на развитие, който се различава от опита на други държави от Третия свят. В тези две държави религиозната идентичност е интегрирана в държавната идеология, за да информира целта и процеса на развитие с ислямските ценности.
Това начинание също представи много различна картина на връзката между исляма и политиката в мюсюлманските общества. В Малайзия и Пакистан, това са държавни институции, а не ислямистки активисти (тези, които се застъпват за политически прочит на исляма; известен също като възрожденци или фундаменталисти) които са били пазители на исляма и защитници на неговите интереси. Това предполага а
много различна динамика в приливите и отливите на ислямската политика - най-малкото сочеща значението на държавата в перипетиите на това явление.
Какво да правим със светските държави, които се превръщат в ислямски? Какво означава такава трансформация за държавата, както и за ислямската политика?
Тази книга се бори с тези въпроси. Това не е изчерпателен разказ за политиката на Малайзия или Пакистан, нито обхваща всички аспекти на ролята на исляма в техните общества и политика, въпреки че аналитичният разказ се спира значително на тези въпроси. Тази книга е по-скоро социално научно изследване на феномена на светските постколониални държави, които се превръщат в агенти на ислямизация, и по-широко как културата и религията обслужват нуждите на държавната власт и развитие. Анализът тук се основава на теоретични дискусии
Анализът тук се основава на теоретични дискусии. Анализът тук се основава на теоретични дискусии, Анализът тук се основава на теоретични дискусии.

| септември 25, 2010 | Коментари 0
Прочетете още

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.
| Август 19, 2010 | Коментари 0
Прочетете още

POLICY AND PRACTICE NOTES

КЕНЕТ РОТ

Today, virtually every government wants to be seen as a democracy, but many resist allowing the basic human rights that would make democracy meaningful because that might jeopardize their grasp on power. Instead, governments use a variety of subterfuges to manage or undermine the electoral process. Their task is facilitated by the lack of a broadly accepted definition of ‘democracy’ akin to the detailed rules of international human rights law. But much of the problem lies in the fact that, because of commercial or strategic interests, the world’s established democracies often close their eyes to electoral manipulation, making it easier for sham democrats to pass themselves off as the real thing. That acquiescence undermines the efforts to promote human rights because it can be more difficult for human rights organizations to stigmatize a government for its human rights violations when that government can hold itself up as an accepted ‘democracy.’ The challenge facing the human rights movement is to highlight the ploys used by dictatorial regimes to feign democratic rule and to build pressure on the established democracies to refuse to admit these pretenders into the club of democracies on the cheap. Keywords: civil society, democracy promotion, dictatorship, Избори,
electoral manipulation, political violence Rarely has democracy been so acclaimed yet so breached, so promoted yet so disrespected, so important yet so disappointing. Democracy has become the key to legitimacy. Few governments want to be seen as undemocratic. Yet the credentials of the claimants have not kept pace with democracy’s
growing popularity. These days, even overt dictators aspire to the status conferred by the democracy label. Determined not to let mere facts stand in their way, these rulers have mastered the art of democratic rhetoric which bears
little relationship to their practice of governing.
This growing tendency poses an enormous challenge to the human rights movement. Human rights groups can hardly oppose the promotion of democracy, but they must be wary that the embrace of democracy not become a subterfuge for avoiding the more demanding standards of international human rights law. Human rights groups must especially insist that their natural governmental allies – the established democracies – not allow competing interests and short-sighted strategies to stand in the way of their
embrace of a richer, more meaningful concept of democracy.

| Август 04, 2010 | Коментари 0
Прочетете още

Assessing the Islamist mainstream in Egypt and Malaysia

Beyond ‘Terrorism’ and ‘StateHegemony’: assessing the Islamistmainstream in Egypt and Malaysia

ДЖАН СТАРКMalaysia-Islamists

International networks of Islamic ‘terrorism’ have served as themost popular explanation to describe the phenomenon of political Islam sincethe 11 September attacks.

This paper argues that both the self-proclaimeddoctrinal Islam of the militants and Western perceptions of a homogeneousIslamist threat need to be deconstructed in order to discover the oftenambiguous manifestations of ‘official’ and ‘opposition’ Islam, of modernity andconservatism.

As a comparison of two Islamic countries, Egypt and Malaysia,which both claim a leading role in their respective regions, shows, moderateIslamic groups have had a considerable impact on processes of democratisationand the emergence of civil society during the quarter century since the ‘Islamicresurgence’.

Shared experiences like coalition building and active participationwithin the political system demonstrate the influence and importance of groupssuch as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM) or the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS).

These groups haveshaped the political landscape to a much larger extent than the current pre-occupation with the ‘terrorist threat’ suggests. The gradual development of a‘culture of dialogue’ has rather revealed new approaches towards politicalparticipation and democracy at the grassroots level.

| Дек 18, 2009 | Коментари 1
Прочетете още