Anwar Ibrahim Speech at US-Islamic World Forum, April 2005

Forging A New Symbiosis in Democratization

Anwar Ibrahim, Senior Associate, St Anthony's, Oxford University, and
Distinguished Senior Fellow, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University, at the
U.S.-Islamic World Forum, 10th-12th April, 2005, Sheraton Hotel, Doha,
Qatar.

Some forty five years ago when I was still attending junior high
school, someone read to me Churchill's "This was their finest hour"
speech. Of course he didn't sound like Churchill but who cares? My
mother tongue is Malay and till today I can never speak like an
Englishman. But what really mattered was that that short speech was so
powerful in its appeal to my adolescent idealism that it inspired me
to want to know more of other cultures and histories.

As I relate this, I am aware that mine is not really an exceptional
case. Like many other Muslims of my time, I grew up in an environment
steeped in tradition and religious rituals. At the same time, I was
often exposed to other faiths and cultures including Western
civilization and values. In the process, it was only natural that
apart from the Quran and the Ahadith, I was also familiar with the
works of Dante, Shakespeare, and T.S Eliot (which, by the way, had
kept me company during my six years of solitary confinement). At High
school, it was not considered unusual for Muslim students to be able
to quote from memory, verses from Shakespeare, or the speeches of
Churchill or Abraham Lincoln. While we were familiar with the Arabic
songs of Ummi Kalthoum and Fairuz and the music of Abdul Wahhab we
were also very much at home with the ballads of Bing Crosby and the
rock and roll numbers of Elvis Presley. There were some constraints of
course. Those pelvic gyrations of Elvis were strictly prohibited in
school concerts. We were only allowed to vocalize, not to tantalize!
This was not a Muslim reaction. It was universal. I believe that in
America as well, similar strictures were in force against Elvis. Well,
the point of all this is that growing up in a traditional Malay Muslim
family in a predominantly Muslim country back in the sixties did not
mean that the door to Western culture, art or learning was slammed
shut in our faces.

The winds of change from autocracy to democracy have been blowing
across various parts of the Muslim world for some time now. The Iraq
war, though still mired in controversy, has yielded the country's
first democratic elections. In this regard, I must say that though I
remain opposed to the war in principle, I must concede that the voices
of freedom in Iraq are now finding expression after decades of
oppression and being forced into silence. I dare say that given half a
chance, Muslim societies not just in Iraq but throughout the world,
will seize the opportunity to enjoy democracy.

Conditions for democracy

But a major concern in our deliberations is whether the mere
phenomenon of elections means that democracy is being practiced the
way it is being preached, or are there still certain fundamental
issues to be resolved. I think it is obvious that among the first will
be that elections must be free, fair and transparent. Free as in free
from interference from all extraneous factors in the determination of
the electoral outcome. Candidates to be elected must be the choice of
their own electorate. And as to fair elections, by some basic
reckoning the starting point would be the so called "level playing
field". And this would include equal access to a free media, open
debates and a conduct of elections that can stand up to international
scrutiny.

Institutions of civil society

It is not enough just to have civil liberties guaranteed in a document
which represents the seal of the people's will. The other basic
institutions of civil society must be in place. If not in place at the
time of the elections, then they must be as soon as possible put in
place once the democratic process gets started.

There must be an independent judiciary that will function as an
effective check and balance against the powers of the executive and
the legislative branches of government. Essentially, the judiciary
must be the bulwark of fundamental liberties. Complementing this, the
position of the state prosecutor should be protected by the
constitutional guarantees as to security of tenure and also be made
accountable to a nonpartisan parliamentary committee.

Need for vibrant opposition

The argument that encouraging democracy in the Muslim world would only
create instability is therefore clearly untenable. Already,
significant progress has been made in the area of civil liberties in
Qatar's new constitution. And undoubtedly, the Doha Declaration for
Democracy and Reform resonates well for the prospects of political
reform in the region. But I believe that a vibrant democracy needs a
vibrant opposition. The "Pandora's box" syndrome that is being raised
runs counter to the fostering of true democracy. Civil liberties
entrenched in the constitution become pious platitudes when the voices
of dissent are not allowed to be heard.

Soul searching

This forum could not have come at a more opportune time and I pray it
will pave the way for more concrete and direct ways of engagement.
None of us from the Muslim world can honestly say that America has not
left a lasting imprint on us. Conversely, America will be equally
dishonest if it fails to acknowledge the vast impact made by the
Muslim world.

It is true though that recent events have widened the chasm. All the
more reason then to heed the call for dialogue and active engagement.
Why can't we give more due to the ties that bind us rather than those
which separate us. Why then should we lend our ears to those who
continue to beat the drums of discord? But Muslims are prone to pride
themselves as being the followers of a religion where the principles
of justice, equality, fair dealing and tolerance are paramount. Yet,
between the idea and the reality falls the shadow. The reality is that
the contradictions are shockingly glaring: For isn't it true that
Muslim leaders are among the greatest perpetrators of injustice? Can
we, in all honesty, deny that Muslim regimes are in fact among the
most blatant violators of human rights, and that their leaders have
the dubious distinction of being the most corrupt and having the most
tenacious grip on power? And when confronted with these issues, these
self-same leaders are not averse to citing chapter and verse to
justify why changes can only be brought about gradually, that Muslim
societies can only take democracy in small doses, and that freedom
will bring about anarchy. And with the war on terror, it is indeed
ironic and even tragic for the cause of democracy, that these regimes
are allowed to persist in their errant ways with impunity.

Allow me to elaborate. It is said that the underlying causes for the
current progress of political reform in the Muslim world are to be
found in the aggressive foreign policy initiatives embarked upon by
the Bush Administration. This is the policy that was launched
following the tragic events of 9-11, a policy marked by a so-called
"forward strategy of freedom". To my mind, while it cannot be denied
that the pro-reform initiatives under this policy have indeed
contributed positively to current developments, yet sometimes the
rhetoric may be more convincing than the reality.

For certain countries, this policy is marked by what I would
characterize as "a strategy of selective ambivalence". In reality, it
means constructively aiding certain countries to resist the tide of
reform by a process of omission rather than commission. Prompted no
doubt by the dictates of expediency, this policy has meant turning a
blind eye to blatant human rights violations and other kinds of abuses
which clearly fly in the face of this forward strategy of freedom. In
return for the support to the United States in the war against terror,
these countries are conferred the status of strategic partners. To my
mind, this is a case of conditionality working backwards. It is a case
of allowing repressive regimes to don the cloak of legitimacy simply
because they raise the specter of terror.

Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world, stands out as the
single most significant political development in the recent history of
democracy. When the East Asian financial crisis broke out, Indonesia
underwent major socio-political upheaval but emerged from the storm a
new nation. In place of oppression and dictatorship, she is now
secured by freedom and democracy. Indeed, Indonesia can serve as a
model of democracy for the world. The press there is absolutely free
and the fairness in the conduct of elections is unsurpassed. The
phenomenal changes brought about through Reformasi should provide an
enduring lesson on peaceful transition from autocracy to democracy.

But if we go beyond the rhetoric, it would not be an exaggeration to
say that for the last two centuries, the Islamic world has been
dazzled by the wealth, power and technological prowess of the West.
Under the bondage of colonialism, the Muslim nations developed a
deep-rooted sense of self-resentment and inferiority and the natural
upshot was an almost total erosion of confidence in their own
traditions.

Confronted with centuries of traditional thinking and submissiveness
to the past, Adonis, arguably the foremost contemporary Arab poet,
denies his roots in the following verses:

My Gospel is rejection,
And my map
A land without a creator

In literature and the arts, Arab writers could not resist the allure
of European existential influence. From Baudelaire, Proust, Joyce and
Kafka to T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Brecht and Beckett, the theme of the
predicament of modern man's loneliness and sense of futility and the
inequities of political oppression fitted in perfectly with the angst
of the Arab writers. Combine this with the effects of the politics of
dispossession, we get the overpowering emotional outburst of the
Palestinian poet, Tawfiq Sayigh:

I drag myself from place to place,
Destitute except for
Daylong remembrances of a home
That was mine yesterday;
Only yesterday.

The point is that it is just as reckless for the Muslim world to
generalize that Americans are the best example of a morally depraved
nation as it is for America to lable the Muslim world as a
civilization full of menacing fundamentalists. We must unequivocally
reject this kind of stereotyping. We must also learn to break free
from the anxiety of historical influence and not succumb to the allure
of bigoted and racist chantings wherever they may issue from, in
whatever shape or form.

To Muslims this will not be just a matter of choice. I believe this
search for greater understanding in a diverse world is a Quranic
imperative:

Oh mankind! Verily we have created you all from a male and a female,
and have made you into nations and tribes that you may come to know
one another.

The challenge before us is indeed enormous. For the Muslim world,
together with authoritarianism, extremism and terrorism are the
greatest impediments to the formation of civil society. The war in
Iraq rages on with increasing ferocity. Suicide bombers continue to
blow themselves up murdering innocent people. Just three weeks ago,
this nation was the victim of such an outrage.

As for America, to many in the Muslim and Arab worlds it still carries
the tag of arrogant power and Metternichian machinations. To merely
dismiss this as a manifestation of hatred of modernity or envy of
technological progress is to miss the point entirely. That there
should be a war against terror is not in dispute. But this military
war must be subsumed under a war of ideas. To my mind, the issues of
modernity and democracy; and fundamentalism and autocracy will loom
large across the battle horizon.

Even as America has not understood Islam, Muslims have also failed to
grasp the spirit of America. Where are the Muslim Tocquevilles?
America has countless centres for Christian and Muslim understanding.
Can we say the same about Muslim countries? Why is the Muslim world so
reluctant to reach out and learn more about the Christian and the
Jewish faiths?

I believe that active engagement through sustained dialogue will not
only help us erase our mutual prejudices borne of ignorance but will
also help us to discover this universal dignity and common humanity
hidden by deep seated fear and distrust. Failure to pursue active
engagement only serves to fortify the prophecies of soothsayers of
impending doom. It is also a wanton dereliction of moral
responsibility to our future generations.

We have much to do together. That we are all gathered here is indeed a
good sign that a new chapter has begun. But we shall need to work
harder to understand each other, and to give the past a decent burial.
Only upon that can we confidently forge ahead with concrete strategic
action plans and translate ideals into reality. Let us take the road
not taken. It may not be tomorrow that we shall relish the fruits of
our labour. But if we do not cast aside our fear of uncertainty and
walk through the storm together, there may not even be a tomorrow to
wake up for. This is our collective responsibility.

In the words of Robert Penn Warren, "We shall come back, no doubt, to
walk down the Row;But that will be a long time from now, and
soon now we shall go out of the house and go into the convulsion of
the world, out of history into history and the awful responsibility
of Time."

Thank you.