The economic empowerment of women does not only better a country’s women’s rights situation, but also results in economic development and increases the size of the middle class. A reliable yardstick through which women’s emancipation from traditional gender roles can be measured is the level of economic self-sufficiency they enjoy. If the Prophet’s wife could work outside the household, all Muslim women should be free to work. Economic independence is vital to political independence.
The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, has done much in this regard. It’s concept, born in the village of Jobra, was to encourage women to start small businesses through microfinance and provide them with the assistance they needed. Eventually, a one-village experiment transformed into a full-fledged banking operation, providing small loans to those who had never before been able to receive financial credit. These microloans did not require legal instruments as collaterals. The goal was poverty reduction. The founders recognised poverty as a threat to democracy and to international public security. 97 percent of the recipients were women, and the recovery rate was above 98 percent.
Democracy cannot be sustained around the world in the absence of a stable and growing middle class. Huge economic disparities between the social strata in a society strain national unity, creating a gap between the rich and the poor. Educated and rich elites dominating illiterate masses is not a successful prescription for the construction of a democratic society.
Unchecked modernisation will have precisely the opposite effect to what was intended. I believe that modernisation and extremism are contradictory and mutually exclusive and that modernity is related to political and religious moderation and not to fundamentalism. The unsubstantiated assertion that modernisation and technology will breed dissonance and difference of opinion and ultimately religious fanaticism is one of the strongest reasons why I believe that the clash of civilizations theory is incorrect and that it encourages the worst elements of human and state nature. I concord with those who see economic development as leading to and consonant with democratic development. This development creates a middle class that wants a say in its own future that cares about the progress and freedom of its sons and daughters.
Huge economic disparities between the social strata in a society strain national unity, creating a gap between the rich and the poor. The domination of the illiterate masses by the educated elite is not a successful prescription for the construction of a democratic society
The maturation of democracy will help end conflict. Strengthening the institutions of democracy will give it a chance to succeed in all societies, including the Muslim world, where the stakes could not be higher. Promoting democracy promotes peace.
Competitive political parties and functioning NGOs promote peace. A free press and an independent judiciary promote peace. A civilian-controlled military promotes peace. Even if the international community is loath to act out of moral impulses, it should act out of self-interest to build a more peaceful and stable world.
To understand different cultures, we need to understand the fault lines that could lead to conflict. We are not dealing with a clash between civilizations but rather with a clash inside a civilization. The most critical battle for the hearts and souls of the coming generation of Muslim leaders, and for the passion of the Muslims around the world. This is not a battle with the West. The debate is between different interpretations of Islam and different visions for the Muslim Ummah. It is around the lack of tolerance that some interpretations show for other interpretations within Islam or other religions outside Islam. It is the value of tolerance that will be the determining factor between the forces of extremism and the forces of moderation, the forces of dictatorship and the forces of democracy, between pluralism and bigotry, between gender equality and gender subservience, between inflexible traditionalism and adaptable modernity. In other words, the real clash within and outside Islam is a struggle between the past and the future. It is the resolution of this struggle that will determine the direction of not only the relationship between Islam and the West but of international relations in this century. Without further delay, to give away the chains and cycle of poverty, extremism, dictatorship, and terrorism, we need to move on the path toward true reconciliation.
Why do we require a dialogue? The answer seems simple and even obvious.
The ancillary question then is: Why now?
The process of globalisation without dialogue may increase the probability and great danger of attempted hegemony. Diversity without dialogue may engender more exclusiveness. Thus, a dialogue between those who perceive diversity as a threat and those who see it as a tool of betterment and growth is intrinsically necessary.
US President Donald Trump and North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un have become the first sitting US President and North Korean premier to meet, an unprecedented development after a year of exchanging threats. After the summit, the leaders signed a comprehensive document, promising a fresh relationship between the nations. I was reading BB’s words of 2007 when President Trump and Kim Jong-un were shaking hands just a week ago in 2018.
No wonder light lasts longer on Benazir Bhutto’s birthday.
The writer is a traveller and freelance writer based in UK. He can be contacted on [email protected]
Published in Daily Times, June 20th 2018.