Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr
~ 안에 1979 무하마드 지아 울하크 장군, 파키스탄의 군사 통치자, 파키스탄이 이슬람 국가가 될 것이라고 선언. 이슬람 가치와 규범은 국가 정체성의 기초가 될 것입니다., 법, 경제, 사회적 관계, 모든 정책 결정에 영감을 줄 것입니다.. ~ 안에 1980 마하티르 무하마드, 말레이시아의 새 총리, 이슬람 가치에 국가 정책 결정을 고정하기 위해 유사한 광범위한 기반 계획 도입, 그리고 이슬람의 가르침에 따라 자국의 법률과 경제 관행을 가져옵니다.. 이 통치자들은 왜 자신의 나라를 위해 "이슬람화"의 길을 선택 했습니까?? 그리고 한때 세속적인 탈식민 국가들은 어떻게 이슬람화의 대리인이 되었고 "진정한" 이슬람 국가의 선구자가 되었습니까??
말레이시아와 파키스탄은 1970년대 후반부터 1980년대 초반까지 다른 제3세계 국가들의 경험과는 다른 독특한 개발 경로를 따랐습니다.. 이 두 나라에서 종교적 정체성은 이슬람 가치로 발전의 목표와 과정을 알리기 위해 국가 이데올로기에 통합되었습니다..
이 사업은 또한 이슬람 사회에서 이슬람과 정치 사이의 관계에 대한 매우 다른 그림을 제시했습니다.. 말레이시아와 파키스탄에서, 이슬람 운동가라기보다는 국가 기관이었다. (이슬람의 정치적 해석을 옹호하는 사람들; 부흥주의자 또는 근본주의자라고도 함) that have been the guardians of Islam and the defenders of its interests. This suggests a
very different dynamic in the ebbs and flow of Islamic politics—in the least pointing to the importance of the state in the vicissitudes of this phenomenon.
What to make of secular states that turn Islamic? What does such a transformation mean for the state as well as for Islamic politics?
This book grapples with these questions. This is not a comprehensive account of Malaysia’s or Pakistan’s politics, nor does it cover all aspects of Islam’s role in their societies and politics, although the analytical narrative dwells on these issues considerably. This book is rather a social scientific inquiry into the phenomenon of secular postcolonial states becoming agents of Islamization, 더 광범위하게는 문화와 종교가 국가 권력과 발전의 필요를 충족시키는 방법. 여기서 분석은 이론적 논의에 의존합니다.
국가 행동의 사회 과학과 그 안에서의 문화와 종교의 역할. 더 중요, 그것은 학문 분야에 관심이 있는 더 넓은 결론을 내리기 위해 조사 중인 사례로부터 추론을 이끌어냅니다..
케네스 로스
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, 선거,
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.
Beyond ‘Terrorism’ and ‘StateHegemony’: assessing the Islamistmainstream in Egypt and Malaysia
얀 스타크
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.