Democracies are rated as the supreme system for our world today. The supreme system which no other can match or surpass. It's the buzzword if any Muslim uses in their speech or written word, you become an accepted member of society. It's the system which if we do not aspire to live under, we are viewed as extremists, as leaked to the Guardian.
Today's return of Binyam Mohammad to the UK, has uncovered an ugly truth for one of the foremost democracies of the world - That democracy actually doesn't unconditionally secure our justice, or even human rights - Just because you live in a democracy, does not in any way mean supremacy in values.
Democracies cover up the ugliness of human greed. Of people who rule by what they believe to be the best for their government, their ruling elite, and it seems, maybe their people. This means that legislation and decisions are subject to several human minds and largely their whims, who have the wealth and power to sit around the table. The evidence over time has only shown that governments will sacrifice any value which stands in their way to fulfil national interests, whether this is the killing of the innocent in Iraq for oil or the innocent victims of the war on terror in which sustains the fear of terrorism.
It is therefore time the world really does open up the debate, without brashly silencing those who have begun to question the untouchable notion of democracy. No democratic government, if it really believes in its own values, should fear the criticism of its system. If their supremacy really stands, criticism and debate can only be healthy in strengthening the conviction in it. Silencing of such criticism can only be rooted in a fear of the actual legitimacy of ones supremacy.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Monday, 23 February 2009
Thursday, 11 December 2008
A Notun Din?
For those who have been born and bred in the UK, a prospective Bangladeshi election and political change means nothing more I'm sure than rain. It comes every other day (especially if you're from sunny Wales) and you don't really batter an eyelid at it. Bangladeshi politics always seems to be an impassioned issue, heated all the time whenever our parents would surf the Bangla news so we all grew a type of immunity towards it. Whether it's some Awami League or BNP, BJP - one of the two?! None of it really makes sense. And as I have recently tried to decipher the politics of Bangladesh, I feel (sorry to burst any bubbles) that it still doesn't really make any sense.
American Presidential candidate McCain after a recent visit to Bangladesh claimed that the upcoming election was possibly one of the 'fairest' of the world. With the caretaker Government's astringent clean-up process across the political world and the massive programme to register over 80 million people, McCain was truly wowed by this rags to riches story.
But before people get carried away by his sweeping claims, I'd really like to question what type of future this free and fair election will give Bangladesh? Will it free them from their deeply ridden problems of crime and corruption? Will give return fairness for all the poor and destitute? Rather than just praise a process, what the real issue is what this process will achieve.
And first and foremost if this is a model of democracy, with the people driving the politicians and politics they want representing them, then why is it that the caretaker Government is astringently screening who can even stand as a party or contestant? Less than half the parties who initially applied for registration have been given the go ahead to actually partake in the process, with Islamically inclined parties being thoroughly scrutinised due to liberalist pressure. Even the widely known party Jamaat e Islam narrowly just made it. Is that democracy?
The fairness that the caretaker Government claim to have created across political culture in the last two years, will no doubt bring a smirk to many a face. Newspaper editor and political analyst Shyamal Dutt said that the anti-corruption drive has failed to stop many bad people from entering the election, in his opinion. Corruption has been straightened out when wanted and to whom wanted, often sporadic. The fact that the two former Prime Minister's, who even the most politically illiterate know were entrenched in corruption, received a year in prison rsp with one out on bail and the other on medical parole, itslef says alot about what the intentions behind their imprisonment really were. Forget financial embezzlement, the fact that both during their terms were never able to attempt to deal with the impoverished people they ruled over, but could fulfil massive plans for India, America or their ruling elite, is itself I feel a crime that deserves more than endless years in prison. And indeed the destination for the ruler who mistreats his people, is no short of hellfire. Thus it makes me wonder who the 'clean-up' act was really for - the people of Bangladesh, or to achieve the nodding heads in America and Britain and for comments like those of Mc Cain.
The reality is this democratic election, in all its hype, will in the end come to be a moment of deja vu for Bangladesh. If you sleep through this election, don't worry you will have seen the result at some point during Bangladeshi history - Either Awami League or the BNP. This is the people's choice dished to you on a plate pre-arranged. And whichever comes to power, it will always be the Capulet-Montague style battle which dominates political headlines - Which party or family did what against whom, over what policy will improve the quality of life for Bangladeshi people.
How can we aspire for change from politics which has been proven as failed? The discussion has to develop outside of the box handed to us.
What we want is real, sustainable change for Bangladesh. Change which shakes the etablishment down to its roots, and actually uproots it! Discarding the deeply-entrenched corruption, injustice to replace it with a system of governance which holds the wellbeing of its citizens and justice for them as its cornerstone, absolutely uncompromisingly. Where everyone, including the ruler and his bandwagon, are all subject to the law and no one is above the law. Where justice is enshrined in an independent judiciary and the authority lies with the people.Where there is a very clear and distinct measure for what the ruler has to abide by, with removal as the consequence of not doing so. And where the sole sovereignty lies with the one Being who deserves it - Allah SWT.
A big vision, a crazy vision you may think. But in this crazy world we live in, big revolutionary change is the only change which will do. Nobody thought the Berlin Wall would change. Nobody thought the Cold War would change and nobody ever thought that occupied America in the 18th century would rise to become the world's superpower. But as a brother not so long ago said, big change can happen. And what I'd like to leave you with is a plea, to believe it and work for it.
American Presidential candidate McCain after a recent visit to Bangladesh claimed that the upcoming election was possibly one of the 'fairest' of the world. With the caretaker Government's astringent clean-up process across the political world and the massive programme to register over 80 million people, McCain was truly wowed by this rags to riches story.
But before people get carried away by his sweeping claims, I'd really like to question what type of future this free and fair election will give Bangladesh? Will it free them from their deeply ridden problems of crime and corruption? Will give return fairness for all the poor and destitute? Rather than just praise a process, what the real issue is what this process will achieve.
And first and foremost if this is a model of democracy, with the people driving the politicians and politics they want representing them, then why is it that the caretaker Government is astringently screening who can even stand as a party or contestant? Less than half the parties who initially applied for registration have been given the go ahead to actually partake in the process, with Islamically inclined parties being thoroughly scrutinised due to liberalist pressure. Even the widely known party Jamaat e Islam narrowly just made it. Is that democracy?
The fairness that the caretaker Government claim to have created across political culture in the last two years, will no doubt bring a smirk to many a face. Newspaper editor and political analyst Shyamal Dutt said that the anti-corruption drive has failed to stop many bad people from entering the election, in his opinion. Corruption has been straightened out when wanted and to whom wanted, often sporadic. The fact that the two former Prime Minister's, who even the most politically illiterate know were entrenched in corruption, received a year in prison rsp with one out on bail and the other on medical parole, itslef says alot about what the intentions behind their imprisonment really were. Forget financial embezzlement, the fact that both during their terms were never able to attempt to deal with the impoverished people they ruled over, but could fulfil massive plans for India, America or their ruling elite, is itself I feel a crime that deserves more than endless years in prison. And indeed the destination for the ruler who mistreats his people, is no short of hellfire. Thus it makes me wonder who the 'clean-up' act was really for - the people of Bangladesh, or to achieve the nodding heads in America and Britain and for comments like those of Mc Cain.
The reality is this democratic election, in all its hype, will in the end come to be a moment of deja vu for Bangladesh. If you sleep through this election, don't worry you will have seen the result at some point during Bangladeshi history - Either Awami League or the BNP. This is the people's choice dished to you on a plate pre-arranged. And whichever comes to power, it will always be the Capulet-Montague style battle which dominates political headlines - Which party or family did what against whom, over what policy will improve the quality of life for Bangladeshi people.
How can we aspire for change from politics which has been proven as failed? The discussion has to develop outside of the box handed to us.
What we want is real, sustainable change for Bangladesh. Change which shakes the etablishment down to its roots, and actually uproots it! Discarding the deeply-entrenched corruption, injustice to replace it with a system of governance which holds the wellbeing of its citizens and justice for them as its cornerstone, absolutely uncompromisingly. Where everyone, including the ruler and his bandwagon, are all subject to the law and no one is above the law. Where justice is enshrined in an independent judiciary and the authority lies with the people.Where there is a very clear and distinct measure for what the ruler has to abide by, with removal as the consequence of not doing so. And where the sole sovereignty lies with the one Being who deserves it - Allah SWT.
A big vision, a crazy vision you may think. But in this crazy world we live in, big revolutionary change is the only change which will do. Nobody thought the Berlin Wall would change. Nobody thought the Cold War would change and nobody ever thought that occupied America in the 18th century would rise to become the world's superpower. But as a brother not so long ago said, big change can happen. And what I'd like to leave you with is a plea, to believe it and work for it.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Obama ahoy!
Obama fever has ransacked not just Atlantic shores but global expanses. Everybody's talkin' about the new black brother, knocking on ordinary people's doors a year ago conjuring political support; to now becoming the the world's latest Greek demiGod. Mr Barack Obaaaaaama. Don't worry I'm not just here to have a rant and a rave at every single TV show falling and blubbering at his every image, I've just made a few observations myself that I'd like to share.
Firstly I do not want to, in any way, belittle the sense of enormity this political event would have meant for those who lived through the Civil Rights movement and life before that - The absolute segregation, degradation in life that had to be endured by a people whose only fault was the shade of their skin. To have been roused by the visionary dream of Martin Luther King, imagining a day where equality of treatment and opportunities would have seemed as dreamlike as Hans Christian Anderson's fairytales. No one would underestimate the feeling of achievement that people such as Jesse Jackson would have felt to have seen this day.
However, just as the American idealistic bubble puzzles us once in a while I feel it's doing so once again. This idea that the advent of a Black political role model is an absolute new start for race relations in America is kinda puzzling. I'm thinking Colin Powell. I'm thinking Condeleeza Rice. Yes, not Presidents, but one could say you couldn't get much closer than they did to having their fairshare of the political leadership of America. Thus this idea that this a whole new dawn for African Americans appears more Obama campaign spin than it is reality. If representation
actually had impact then why was it that having the likes of Colin Powell in such high esholons of American politics didn't actually affect the twisted and deep-rooted racism that took place after the atrocity of Hurricane Katrina?Then what real difference can another Black politican really, practically make?
And this is where my problem lies. Democracy at its core places representation as a key value. The idea is that you work towards representation of the people, to be able to create justice and equal rights for them. But isn't this in reality a fallacy? For example, the ongoing plug to get more women into higher political positions - how does this actually affect the attitudes and treatment of women in real society on the ground? Another woman in the House of Commons for example, doesn't really have a bearing on the prejudices, oppression and exploitation of rights many women go through in all walks of life on a grassroots level. Tessa or Ruth sitting in the House of Commons debating anything from childcare to troops in Iraq moreover seems mutually exclusive from the issue of Samantha being prostituted for drugs in Bethnal Green, or Alisha scared for her son's involvement in gangs.
The argument is that representation creates better empathy and understanding of problems. So Obama may understand the feeling of being degraded due to his skin and Tessa might understand the importance of children for a mother - But we're human beings with weaknesses, fallacies, different perceptions of what is good bad, important unimportant. To rely purely on that empathy or possible experience of someone who you feel represents you, is absolutely naive. I wouldn't trust any stranger to look after my kids, why would I want one to use their perceptions and experiences to legislate rules for them?
The Rwandan Government boasts a whopping 56.25% of its Parliamentary seats belonging to women - the current shining world record. So do they have a women's rights record as gleaming to match? Well we know that during the civil war in Rwanda, one of the most widely used weapon was that of rape against women (HRW 1996). A common practice of 'marriage by abduction' which takes place today in Rwanda deems it possible for a man to abduct a woman to marry her and he then holds absolute power over her, despite what she wants, thinks or feels. Developments on tackling such deeprooted exploitation of women in a country with the best female representation in Government in the world, has been minimal.
Islam does not rely on representation as a means of achieving justice. A Khalif (ruler) in Islam is at the service of his people, to rule by Islam and the Shariah. So he does not have the mercy to give ample rights and advantages to a group of people, and take away or forget another. The rights of people are laid out in Islam and he must execute them, otherwise face removal. He has a measure by which people can judge his ruling, the Shariah. Thus just because he is not a woman, doesn't mean he cannot rule over them with justice - Because the law he rules with is that which has been created by the Creator of all women, the Creator who knows the nature and needs of women the best. When Umar ibn Al Khattab, the second khalif of Islam decided to fix the dowry rate it was a laywoman who stood up and accounted him, warning him that he could not restrict something which Allah and his Messenger did not restrict. He immidately agreed with the woman's comment, deeming her right, and that he was wrong. It was therefore Islam which was supreme, not perceptions of what Umar or his assistants felt were right.
Obama symbolises i'm sure the road to recovery, change for the world's superpower who it felt almost overnight became crippled by a plethora of problems. But all I ask is that we all think outside of the lines that are drawn for us. That there is a world beyond democracy and that our vision and mind is not squashed into the box of what politics has come to mean. Because if justice is our goal, then we need to look at the bigger picture and work out how to really achieve it; even if this means rethinking whether the map which we have always used up until now, really does set out the right way.
Firstly I do not want to, in any way, belittle the sense of enormity this political event would have meant for those who lived through the Civil Rights movement and life before that - The absolute segregation, degradation in life that had to be endured by a people whose only fault was the shade of their skin. To have been roused by the visionary dream of Martin Luther King, imagining a day where equality of treatment and opportunities would have seemed as dreamlike as Hans Christian Anderson's fairytales. No one would underestimate the feeling of achievement that people such as Jesse Jackson would have felt to have seen this day.
However, just as the American idealistic bubble puzzles us once in a while I feel it's doing so once again. This idea that the advent of a Black political role model is an absolute new start for race relations in America is kinda puzzling. I'm thinking Colin Powell. I'm thinking Condeleeza Rice. Yes, not Presidents, but one could say you couldn't get much closer than they did to having their fairshare of the political leadership of America. Thus this idea that this a whole new dawn for African Americans appears more Obama campaign spin than it is reality. If representation
actually had impact then why was it that having the likes of Colin Powell in such high esholons of American politics didn't actually affect the twisted and deep-rooted racism that took place after the atrocity of Hurricane Katrina?Then what real difference can another Black politican really, practically make?
And this is where my problem lies. Democracy at its core places representation as a key value. The idea is that you work towards representation of the people, to be able to create justice and equal rights for them. But isn't this in reality a fallacy? For example, the ongoing plug to get more women into higher political positions - how does this actually affect the attitudes and treatment of women in real society on the ground? Another woman in the House of Commons for example, doesn't really have a bearing on the prejudices, oppression and exploitation of rights many women go through in all walks of life on a grassroots level. Tessa or Ruth sitting in the House of Commons debating anything from childcare to troops in Iraq moreover seems mutually exclusive from the issue of Samantha being prostituted for drugs in Bethnal Green, or Alisha scared for her son's involvement in gangs.
The argument is that representation creates better empathy and understanding of problems. So Obama may understand the feeling of being degraded due to his skin and Tessa might understand the importance of children for a mother - But we're human beings with weaknesses, fallacies, different perceptions of what is good bad, important unimportant. To rely purely on that empathy or possible experience of someone who you feel represents you, is absolutely naive. I wouldn't trust any stranger to look after my kids, why would I want one to use their perceptions and experiences to legislate rules for them?
The Rwandan Government boasts a whopping 56.25% of its Parliamentary seats belonging to women - the current shining world record. So do they have a women's rights record as gleaming to match? Well we know that during the civil war in Rwanda, one of the most widely used weapon was that of rape against women (HRW 1996). A common practice of 'marriage by abduction' which takes place today in Rwanda deems it possible for a man to abduct a woman to marry her and he then holds absolute power over her, despite what she wants, thinks or feels. Developments on tackling such deeprooted exploitation of women in a country with the best female representation in Government in the world, has been minimal.
Islam does not rely on representation as a means of achieving justice. A Khalif (ruler) in Islam is at the service of his people, to rule by Islam and the Shariah. So he does not have the mercy to give ample rights and advantages to a group of people, and take away or forget another. The rights of people are laid out in Islam and he must execute them, otherwise face removal. He has a measure by which people can judge his ruling, the Shariah. Thus just because he is not a woman, doesn't mean he cannot rule over them with justice - Because the law he rules with is that which has been created by the Creator of all women, the Creator who knows the nature and needs of women the best. When Umar ibn Al Khattab, the second khalif of Islam decided to fix the dowry rate it was a laywoman who stood up and accounted him, warning him that he could not restrict something which Allah and his Messenger did not restrict. He immidately agreed with the woman's comment, deeming her right, and that he was wrong. It was therefore Islam which was supreme, not perceptions of what Umar or his assistants felt were right.
Obama symbolises i'm sure the road to recovery, change for the world's superpower who it felt almost overnight became crippled by a plethora of problems. But all I ask is that we all think outside of the lines that are drawn for us. That there is a world beyond democracy and that our vision and mind is not squashed into the box of what politics has come to mean. Because if justice is our goal, then we need to look at the bigger picture and work out how to really achieve it; even if this means rethinking whether the map which we have always used up until now, really does set out the right way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
