The events in Tunisia and Egypt have done much to seriously question the type of political vocabulary we adopt in Pakistan. For too long we have associated the Right with religion, and the Left with the secular.
But this understanding is symptomatic of a deep and dangerous illusion in Pakistani politics that refuses to acknowledge diversity. That indeed sometimes the secular can be autocratic and the religious can be democratic; that there are different types of ‘secularism’ and ‘Islamism’.
Let me begin by saying that the meanings of ‘secularism’ and ‘Islamism’ have to be located in a particular national context and particular political discourse. For instance in Tunisia, the main ‘Islamist’ opposition headed by Rachid Al Ghannouchi, for all intents and purposes, adopted a set of political beliefs and ideas that we can identify as democratic and liberal.
Robin Wright writes in Islam and Liberal Democracy: Two Visions Of Reformation, quoting Ghannouchi’s political thought:
“Islam recognises as a fact of life the diversity and pluralism of peoples and cultures, and calls for mutual recognition and coexistence…Outside its own society, Islam recognises civilisational and religious pluralism and opposes the use of force to transfer a civilisation or impose a religion.”
Wright in her work argues that Ghannouchi is a proponent of gender equality, minority rights, electoral politics, free media and human rights whilst maintaining that he can justify all these principles by using religious philosophy and religious values (which is detailed in the book Rachid Ghannouchi: A Democrat within Islamism). In short, Ghannouchi proposes liberalism without secularism and that is what is interesting about his political party al Nahda (Renaissance). It seems as if Ghannouchi’s political manifesto has remarkable similarities with the AKP party in Turkey, which has introduced some of the most liberal and democratic reforms not only in their own country but also in the wider Islamic world.
The example of Ghannouchi is to prove a point, and that point is that, for too long, we have lazily identified ‘Islamism’ with violence and extremism. Indeed, in a recent publication, Islamism — Contested Perspectives on Political Islam, noted scholars Don Emmerson and Daniel Varsco both write that, after conducting research and analysis, “We both agree that the term Islamism should not be linked exclusively with political violence and militancy.”
Indeed, Mohammad Ayoob, another scholar who studies Muslim political and social movements writes of a promising trend in ‘Islamist politics’: “If there is a discernible long-term trend in Islamist politics, it points toward moderation and constitutionalism, not violence and extremism.”
The word ‘Islamist’ on its own does not tell us anything about what type of political values are held and cherished. The Islamist rather should be, in the words of an American scholar Graham Fuller, someone “who believes that Islam as a body of faith has something important to say about how politics and society should be ordered in the contemporary Muslim world and who seeks to implement this idea in some fashion”.
We can take this definition practically. Some Islamists may see liberal democracy and pluralism as Islamic values; indeed many political thinkers in the Muslim world who are identified as Islamist such as Rachid Al Ghannouchi, or even the AKP party in Turkey, openly state that liberalism, democracy, rule of law, equality and human rights are all Islamic values. Different Islamists will believe different things. Some will believe that democracy has no place in Islam but this does not mean we identify Islamism solely with theocracy.
We have Muslim intellectuals like Abdulaziz Sachedina who, in his work The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, argues that a specific interpretation of the Quran can be used to support the establishment of a liberal democracy and an ethic of religious tolerance and pluralism. These can be termed as ‘liberal Islamists’, because such political actors associate the values of liberty, freedom and human rights with the message of Islam.
We need to be more articulate in the way we deal with religious parties and religiously inspired political actors in the Muslim world. Fuller writes again: “Other terms are then required to describe various places along that spectrum: violent, radical, quietist, democratic, reformist, moderate, pragmatic, ideological — whatever. But in the absence of a term to describe the full spectrum of the Islamist phenomenon, we in effect close our minds analytically to the encouraging evolution of Islamism in more positive directions.”
We can have all sorts of Islamists, and we must scrutinise and critically analyse the platforms, policies and manifestos of religious parties to see whether they support a democratic and liberal political framework or an autocratic system. As we have seen with the AKP, ‘Islamism’ can be used in more positive directions. The AKP has introduced recently some of the most liberal and democratic reforms seen in the Muslim world, whereas our so-called ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ PPP has been responsible for allowing some of the most abhorrent pieces of legislation to take root in Pakistan. Human rights reports from organisations like Amnesty show that our ‘democratic and liberal’ political parties do nothing to improve the human rights situation in Pakistan. Whether it was the PPP or any other political party, which comes into power in Pakistan, the human rights situation never improves but only deteriorates. This alone points to a bankruptcy of political liberalism in Pakistan.
If one is to take a look at religious parties, or the state of Pakistani Islamism, then we can conclude that in Pakistan we have the misfortune of having some of the most regressive, anti-democratic and illiberal Islamists in the Muslim world. Pakistani Islamism has not yet evolved to encompass a liberal and democratic trend.
In many parts of the Muslim world, Islamist parties have adopted a pragmatic approach, and this condition of compromise is effectively described by Professor Bayat: “Post-Islamism denotes a departure, albeit in diverse degrees, from an Islamist ideological package which is characterised by universalism, monopoly of religious truth, exclusivism and obligation towards acknowledging ambiguity, multiplicity, inclusion and compromise in principles and practice.”
One can argue this is a shift towards Islamist reform — an evolution from an autocratic Islamism towards a liberal democratic Islamism (rather than post-Islamism). What we must do is engage Islamist actors and strengthen the democratic process since electoral politics is a moderating force. A strong democracy will force Islamist parties to adopt a liberal trend. The success of rooting out Pakistani religious extremism depends on the strength and state of Pakistani democracy.
The writer is a student at the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He can be reached at [email protected]