RSSLahat ng Entries Na Naka-tag Sa: "Malaysia"

Islam at ang Paggawa ng Kapangyarihan ng Estado

seyyed vali reza nasr

Sa 1979 Heneral Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, ang pinunong militar ng Pakistan, ipinahayag na ang Pakistan ay magiging isang Islamic state. Ang mga halaga at pamantayan ng Islam ay magsisilbing pundasyon ng pambansang pagkakakilanlan, batas, ekonomiya, at ugnayang panlipunan, at magbibigay inspirasyon sa lahat ng paggawa ng patakaran. Sa 1980 Mahathir Muhammad, ang bagong punong ministro ng Malaysia, nagpakilala ng katulad na malawak na nakabatay sa plano upang iangkla ang paggawa ng patakaran ng estado sa mga halagang Islamiko, at upang maiayon ang mga batas at gawaing pang-ekonomiya ng kanyang bansa sa mga turo ng Islam. Bakit pinili ng mga pinunong ito ang landas ng "Islamisasyon" para sa kanilang mga bansa? At paano naging mga ahente ng Islamisasyon ang isang beses na sekular na postkolonyal na estado at ang tagapagbalita ng "tunay" na estadong Islam.?
Ang Malaysia at Pakistan ay mula noong huling bahagi ng 1970s–unang bahagi ng 1980s ay sumunod sa isang natatanging landas tungo sa pag-unlad na nag-iiba mula sa mga karanasan ng ibang mga estado ng Third World. Sa dalawang bansang ito, ang pagkakakilanlan ng relihiyon ay isinama sa ideolohiya ng estado upang ipaalam ang layunin at proseso ng pag-unlad na may mga pagpapahalagang Islamiko.
Ang gawaing ito ay nagpakita rin ng ibang larawan ng kaugnayan sa pagitan ng Islam at pulitika sa mga lipunang Muslim. Sa Malaysia at Pakistan, ito ay mga institusyon ng estado sa halip na mga aktibistang Islamista (yaong nagtataguyod ng politikal na pagbabasa ng Islam; kilala rin bilang mga revivalist o fundamentalists) 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, at mas malawak kung paano nagsisilbi ang kultura at relihiyon sa mga pangangailangan ng kapangyarihan at pag-unlad ng estado. Ang pagsusuri dito ay umaasa sa mga teoretikal na talakayan
sa mga agham panlipunan ng pag-uugali ng estado at ang papel ng kultura at relihiyon dito. Mas mahalaga, kumukuha ito ng mga hinuha mula sa mga kaso na sinusuri upang makagawa ng mas malawak na konklusyon ng interes sa mga disiplina.

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

Shadi Hamid
U.S. 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 at 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. However, 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, at, 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. At saka, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.



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: sambayanan, democracy promotion, dictatorship, halalan,
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.

Assessing the Islamist mainstream in Egypt and Malaysia

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

JAN STARKMalaysia-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.