Lecture at Conference "From Arab Spring to Democracy", 25. 1. 2013, The Diplomatic Academy of Vienna
In the context of the Arab Spring the use of the term "Islamism" is very
common. There is talk of replacing old and more or less authoritarian secular
regimes in the Middle East, mainly in North Africa ,
by new political elites, often by "Islamists". Journalistic use of
the term is almost excessive, and moreover, I am not always sure that
journalists really always know what they are writing about. It is one of the
reasons why the Western public is frightened by the term or, in better case,
confused by it. After all, the Islamists are not just known as organizations
and political parties which are beginning to dominate politics in the countries
of the Arab Spring (Muslim Brotherhood,
An-Nahda,...), but they are also known as radical followers of Al-Qaeda, various offshoots of Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Afghan Taliban,
etc. Using the same term for these entities must necessarily negatively affect
the public's view on what is happening in the Middle East and especially the
consequences of the Arab Spring. It is well known that after the Arab Spring
Islamists started to participate in mainstream politics, were successful in
elections, and eventually won the battle for the presidency in some countries...
In my opinion, the whole concept of using the term "Islamism" in the general discourse is very vague and often confusing. It is trying to evoke a seemingly clear and unequivocal understanding of a concept which is in fact very general - and also, in its generality and the different streams and concepts which represent it, it also has great internal dynamics. After all, even the Islamists of the period before the Arab Spring, who often worked in hiding, or at least in opposition to the ruling regime, do not have to always be the same as the Islamists who are represented in the parliaments and government coalitions in some Arab countries today, even if the two groups still carry the same name. The dynamics and ambiguity of the term “Islamism” are the most strikingly demonstrable on the dynamics and the ambiguity of the most famous formation of the Arab Spring: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Since 1928, when it was founded, it has undergone a number of developmental stages, radicalizations and moderations:
- Soon the Brotherhood started to be sharply politicized and radicalized because it had great popularity, and the regime started to be worried by it. The Brotherhood began to see itself as a political alternative and even began to organize assassinations of top officials of the State - that resulted in repressions against the Brotherhood and the departure of a number of its members into exile.
- Under President Nasser, after the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy, there was a brief truce between the Brotherhood and the state, which was followed by another wave of repression and radicalization of the Brotherhood.
- Under President Sadat a gradual loosening of the repressions against the Brotherhood began, and this led to the secession of the radicals. The loosening continued under Mubarak, and during this time the Brotherhood started to be semi-legal. Nevertheless, it was able to maintain a certain aura of martyrdom and the opposition, which, coupled with the political apparatus which the Brothers were able to establish, proved to be a great advantage for it in the time of the Arab Spring.
In the context of contemporary world events and attempts at finding
parallels between Islam and political radicalism, the term "Islamism"
is even more vague than, for example, the term "Christian politics."
After all, “protecting Christian values through politics" could also
have various colors, although it is largely known in the minds of Westerners as
something at least "relatively constructive" in the sense of the
Christian-democratic parties. Today, it is also not remembered so much that the
Christian politics is not just Christian democracy but also its militant forms
(the clerical fascism of Ustasha in Croatia during the Second World War, the
conflict in Northern Ireland, Joseph Kony's "God's Army", etc.).
The very understanding of the term "Islamism" and its definition are very ambiguous, and thus the public in the West, the experts and the Muslims themselves could all have different understandings of it. For the Western public the concept of “Islamism” has a mostly negative coloring. But the experts warn that the term is so complex and ambiguous that it is difficult for the public to correctly understand it. And Muslims often do not understand the concept the way we understand it at all, since the term "Islamism" is not a traditional Arabic term like, for example, the terms in the Qur'an, but a Western neologism. I do not want to attempt to create another definition of it. Yet I would like to try to point out at least two points which are found in many different definitions of Islamism: "the Islamic revivalism" and "politicization of Islam". But both of these terms could be conceived very differently and each could also have a different internal gradation:
The search for other unifying characteristics of "Islamism" could continue and perhaps other additional common points of various definitions of the term could also be found. Here are two examples:
But as I mentioned, I do not want to attempt to create another definition of Islamism, which would also be imperfect, like all the previous ones. It should also be clarified that the Islamic understanding of politics is very different from the Western concept. In the West there is a relatively clear separation between state and religion (even in cases where there is no overt separation of church and state). However, in traditional Muslim society, as in traditional Jewish society, there is no separation of secular and spiritual power – they are intertwined into one. Due to the fragmentation of the Muslim world this was often an ideal situation rather than the real situation, but at the time of the Caliphate the unity existed and it is still an inspiration for today's followers of Islamism.
The term "Islamism" also does not reflect in any way how the mentioned values, the commitment to unity, etc. should be achieved. The spectrum is very wide: from participation in politics - e.g. through participation in elections and respecting the constitutionalism streaming from a secular constitution (but for the fundamentalist Muslims the only binding constitution is the Quran) and political competition – through the rejection of democracy as a means of promoting Islamic values to radical anti-system activities which may be associated with the use of violence and terrorism. So if someone still persists in using the term "Islamism", he should make it at least slightly more accurate by using the terms "moderate Islamism" and "radical Islamism."
If we follow the blending of Islam and politics in theMiddle
East – not only during the Arab Spring, but during the past few
decades, we can trace several different types of perception of Islamism:
We could spend a lot of time developing our reflections on Islamism in the Arab Spring, but to close my speech, I really hope that I managed to at least indicate the complexity and pitfalls of using the term "Islamism", not only in the context of the Arab Spring. I believe that the blending of political and religious events in theMiddle East should no longer be characterized by simplistic and vague concepts, and that it
should be accepted or criticized in all of its complexity.
Marek Čejka
In the context of the Arab Spring the use of the term "Islamism" is very
common. There is talk of replacing old and more or less authoritarian secular
regimes in the Middle East, mainly in In my opinion, the whole concept of using the term "Islamism" in the general discourse is very vague and often confusing. It is trying to evoke a seemingly clear and unequivocal understanding of a concept which is in fact very general - and also, in its generality and the different streams and concepts which represent it, it also has great internal dynamics. After all, even the Islamists of the period before the Arab Spring, who often worked in hiding, or at least in opposition to the ruling regime, do not have to always be the same as the Islamists who are represented in the parliaments and government coalitions in some Arab countries today, even if the two groups still carry the same name. The dynamics and ambiguity of the term “Islamism” are the most strikingly demonstrable on the dynamics and the ambiguity of the most famous formation of the Arab Spring: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Since 1928, when it was founded, it has undergone a number of developmental stages, radicalizations and moderations:
- The Muslim Brotherhood was established as a
charitable and non-political organization and as an alternative to the dysfunctional social
system in Egypt
- Soon the Brotherhood started to be sharply politicized and radicalized because it had great popularity, and the regime started to be worried by it. The Brotherhood began to see itself as a political alternative and even began to organize assassinations of top officials of the State - that resulted in repressions against the Brotherhood and the departure of a number of its members into exile.
- Under President Nasser, after the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy, there was a brief truce between the Brotherhood and the state, which was followed by another wave of repression and radicalization of the Brotherhood.
- Under President Sadat a gradual loosening of the repressions against the Brotherhood began, and this led to the secession of the radicals. The loosening continued under Mubarak, and during this time the Brotherhood started to be semi-legal. Nevertheless, it was able to maintain a certain aura of martyrdom and the opposition, which, coupled with the political apparatus which the Brothers were able to establish, proved to be a great advantage for it in the time of the Arab Spring.
In the context of contemporary world events and attempts at finding
parallels between Islam and political radicalism, the term "Islamism"
is even more vague than, for example, the term "Christian politics."
After all, “protecting Christian values through politics" could also
have various colors, although it is largely known in the minds of Westerners as
something at least "relatively constructive" in the sense of the
Christian-democratic parties. Today, it is also not remembered so much that the
Christian politics is not just Christian democracy but also its militant forms
(the clerical fascism of Ustasha in Croatia during the Second World War, the
conflict in Northern Ireland, Joseph Kony's "God's Army", etc.).The very understanding of the term "Islamism" and its definition are very ambiguous, and thus the public in the West, the experts and the Muslims themselves could all have different understandings of it. For the Western public the concept of “Islamism” has a mostly negative coloring. But the experts warn that the term is so complex and ambiguous that it is difficult for the public to correctly understand it. And Muslims often do not understand the concept the way we understand it at all, since the term "Islamism" is not a traditional Arabic term like, for example, the terms in the Qur'an, but a Western neologism. I do not want to attempt to create another definition of it. Yet I would like to try to point out at least two points which are found in many different definitions of Islamism: "the Islamic revivalism" and "politicization of Islam". But both of these terms could be conceived very differently and each could also have a different internal gradation:
- Revivalism of Islamic values: this means an "Islamic
Reformation" with a similar logic to that which was seen in Christianity -
a return to the true/original values and to the purity of Islam. It can, of
course, be interpreted in different ways - it can range from a literal to a
symbolic return to the Islamic roots. In this revivalism, emphasis could be
placed on strengthening the role of Shari'a law and on Muslim unity (i.e.
the renewal of the spiritual and political unity of Muslims with the Caliphate as the ideal political system).
Often the revivalism could be seen as purifying Islam of the various
"sediments" which are considered to be alien and not originally
Islamic - such as Sufism and Sufi rituals (hadra, zikr), or cults
of saints and pilgrimages to their tombs. But relationship between Sufism and
Islamism today is not so clear - even when some Islamist movements clearly
reject Sufis, the other Islamist groups could have a mingling of Sufism and
revivalism. For example, the Brotherhood's founder Hassan al-Banna was a
Sufi.
- Perception of Islamism as a political project (political action) in the sense of the modern understanding of politics (to put it more simply, "political Islam", "politicized Islam", or "Islam as a political ideology," which can, for example, be promoted by Islamic political parties): This does not simply mean an "Islamic government" – Islamic governments existed from the very beginning of Islam with the existence of the Caliphate. It is rather a modern Islamic revival associated with politics – and it can include both parliamentary politics, on the one hand, and radicalism and terror, on the other. As was mentioned by the main spiritual leader of the Tunisian Islamists Rashid Ghannoushi, who returned toTunisia from his exile of many years after the
fall of Bin Ali, "Islam (in Tunisia
- Perception of Islamism as a political project (political action) in the sense of the modern understanding of politics (to put it more simply, "political Islam", "politicized Islam", or "Islam as a political ideology," which can, for example, be promoted by Islamic political parties): This does not simply mean an "Islamic government" – Islamic governments existed from the very beginning of Islam with the existence of the Caliphate. It is rather a modern Islamic revival associated with politics – and it can include both parliamentary politics, on the one hand, and radicalism and terror, on the other. As was mentioned by the main spiritual leader of the Tunisian Islamists Rashid Ghannoushi, who returned to
The search for other unifying characteristics of "Islamism" could continue and perhaps other additional common points of various definitions of the term could also be found. Here are two examples:
- Islamism is a defensive reaction to Western influence.
- Islamism is a response to "decadent" influences in Muslim societies - to nationalism, to ethnic, tribal, and political fragmentation, etc.).
- Islamism is a response to "decadent" influences in Muslim societies - to nationalism, to ethnic, tribal, and political fragmentation, etc.).
But as I mentioned, I do not want to attempt to create another definition of Islamism, which would also be imperfect, like all the previous ones. It should also be clarified that the Islamic understanding of politics is very different from the Western concept. In the West there is a relatively clear separation between state and religion (even in cases where there is no overt separation of church and state). However, in traditional Muslim society, as in traditional Jewish society, there is no separation of secular and spiritual power – they are intertwined into one. Due to the fragmentation of the Muslim world this was often an ideal situation rather than the real situation, but at the time of the Caliphate the unity existed and it is still an inspiration for today's followers of Islamism.
The followers of Islamism have in some respects a great advantage over
other political forces – they do not need to define and adapt their political
program. This is because everything (including the rules for politics) is in
the Quran, the Hadith and other sacred texts. Also, "Islam is the
solution" is a very popular slogan among Islamists. Of course, the
situation is not as simple as it seems, because the interpretation of the Quran
itself is not done not by Allah himself, but just by people – and the
interpretations of various Islamist movements may be very different.
The term "Islamism" also does not reflect in any way how the mentioned values, the commitment to unity, etc. should be achieved. The spectrum is very wide: from participation in politics - e.g. through participation in elections and respecting the constitutionalism streaming from a secular constitution (but for the fundamentalist Muslims the only binding constitution is the Quran) and political competition – through the rejection of democracy as a means of promoting Islamic values to radical anti-system activities which may be associated with the use of violence and terrorism. So if someone still persists in using the term "Islamism", he should make it at least slightly more accurate by using the terms "moderate Islamism" and "radical Islamism."
If we follow the blending of Islam and politics in the
(slide)
- Participative/legal (constructive, state-building) Islamist movements (e.g. Hizb an-Nahda in post-Ben Ali Tunisia, AKP in Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, PJD in Morocco)
- Radical Islamist/Jihadist movements – these use subversive and violent methods for gaining influence and dominance in politics in the Muslim World (e.g. Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, Islamic Jihad).
- Hybrid/sui-generis movements – these could combine social work, charity work, etc. together with violent methods (e.g. Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon), they can use radical rhetoric without using violence (e.g. Hizb ut-Tahrir, some Wahhabi streams) or they could combine radicalism and social activity with ethnicity – e.g. Taliban.
- Non-political Islamist movements such as some Sufi
orders and some Salafis, as well
as the movement Al-Adl wal Ihsan
("Justice and Charity",
Particularly interesting is the last group - the so-called "apolitical
Islamists" - which could actually be a contradictory term, because it is
believed that one of the main elements of Islamism is at least some effort toward
political action. As was already noted, many followers and leaders of Islamism
came from apolitical Islamic movements. But those personalities went through
intellectual developments and shifts. From this perspective, it is interesting
to see the recent development of the attitudes of the Egyptian Salafists, who
went directly from having apolitical attitudes before the Arab Spring to
political participation. Their success and popularity in post-Mubarak Egypt
We could spend a lot of time developing our reflections on Islamism in the Arab Spring, but to close my speech, I really hope that I managed to at least indicate the complexity and pitfalls of using the term "Islamism", not only in the context of the Arab Spring. I believe that the blending of political and religious events in the
Marek Čejka
Žádné komentáře:
Okomentovat