In Focus: Towards a modern state Attempts to accommodate Islamism are at heart regressive, argues Galal Nassar On the 60th anniversary of the occupation of Palestine, and with sectarian strife rearing its head in Lebanon, Iraq and Sudan, the model of the modern civil state with its attendant features of strong civil institutions and good governance is a faded dream. We once called the loss of Palestine a catastrophe. Now we face more catastrophes, from the Islamic revival and the Shia-Sunni divide to the strife between groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the regimes in Egypt, Jordan and Palestine. The enthusiasm with which proponents of the Islamist current advocate a so-called Islamic revival is one of the more puzzling factors in the current equation. Defending the Islamists is by now a cottage industry, a well trodden pathway for career advancement and upward mobility. Writing articles in defence of the Islamic current, accepting invitations to conferences and debates to discuss its pros and cons, has become a lifestyle. Some writers, indeed, appear to have wagered their entire career on the Islamists. For them, the rise and fall of the Islamists is, if not a matter of life and death, at least one of a lucrative livelihood. Islamist currents, and their media supporters, are now aligned with regional powers that arm and finance them, offering them logistical and media support that ensures continued access to the pubic. In return, the Islamists and their supporters promote the agenda and interests of their paymasters, boosting their stature on the international scene. Relations between Hizbullah and Syria and Iran are a case in point. Note also the relationship between Hamas and Jihad and Iran and Syria. All Islamist movements in the region have links with foreign powers and their intelligence services. The latter urge the Islamists to follow certain policies that may not be in the best interests of their own countries. In return they provide money and arms. Compare today's Islamists with the national resistance movements of the past, in Egypt, Algeria and Libya. The actions of the latter were undertaken solely for the good of their people, not to consolidate the influence of outsiders. Writers engaged in propaganda on behalf of Iranian-backed Islamic resistance movements glorify attempts to destroy the institutions of society, describing such feats as a victory and a necessity. Often they blame the authorities or the government (that is to say, the authorities and government of the country in question, not of an occupying power), claiming that the authorities were about to undermine the resistance, i.e. were acting treasonously. As this tragedy unfolds, supporters of the government are often killed, displaced or humiliated. We've seen this happen in Gaza and more recently in Beirut. Blood is shed, media offices are burned, civilians terrorised, and the country in question falls apart amid scenes of horror that may benefit Iran, but mostly benefit Israel. The latter could not possibly do in Gaza and Beirut what Hamas and Hizbullah have done. So who exactly is working for Israel? This is a question the proponents of Islamist movements must answer with a straight face. Pro-Islamist writers do so in the service of three states. One is Syria, a country that is in crisis and where the regime is facing immense pressures. Syria has no hope of restoring land through military force and its regime has no bargaining chips aside from Hamas, Jihad and Hizbullah and, by extension, its leverage in Lebanon. Through its alliance with Iran, the financial and military backer of these movements, Damascus hopes to shore up its negotiating position. Then there is Iran, a country with nuclear ambitions that is seeking to expand Shia influence in Iraq, the Gulf, Lebanon and Syria. It plans to do this through weakening the influence of major Sunni powers, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran is hoping to form a Shia crescent in the region and is pushing its nuclear programme to bolster its regional schemes. It provides financial and military aid to sectarian Shias in Iraq, to Hizbullah in Lebanon and to Hamas and Jihad in Palestine, using them as pawns to help alleviate international pressure on its nuclear programme. Every now and then Iran supports the coups staged by its Islamist friends in order to divert political and media attention from its various schemes. The third country is Qatar. Hoping to compensate for its small size and lack of influence and wishing to assert its independence from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Qatar has created a media service designed to amplify its stature. Qatar-sponsored media gives voice to dissidents and a platform to Islamic resistance movements as well as opposition Islamist leaders in various Arab countries. Qatar often hosts questionable international conferences, purportedly to promote democracy but really to gain some leverage on Arab regimes, especially those that fear criticism and unrest. Al-Jazeera has been instrumental in supporting Islamist schemes and promoting fundamentalist Islamic thinking. The Qatari-funded satellite television service constantly conflates resistance, dignity and freedom with Islamist movements, as if it is only through the latter we have any hope of standing up and being counted. This is all happening under the protection of the largest American bases in the region. So in a way the Americans are protecting both Qatar and those who appear as guests on Al-Jazeera. No wonder that the policies of Qatar, Syria and Iran are often uncannily alike. Any coherent democratic, secular model must exhibit the following features: - A separation of religion and state, though this does not mean that a secular, democratic state is not interested in providing the conditions for learning/practising various creeds in a climate of respect for the individual freedom of its citizens. - The separation of religion and politics, for to involve religion in politics is to reproduce mediaeval discourses of conflict, the hallmark of which were accusations and counter- accusations of heresy. By its very nature, "religious truth" is dictated by those who have prevailed. - The separation of religion and science. We mustn't forget that religion is an act of faith whereas science is the result of questioning. - Separation of religion and economy. In a model democratic state the economy cannot operate above or outside the law just as those who have power, be it political, economic or religious, cannot be afforded any legal exemption. - The separation of religion and education systems. The educational process is inextricably linked to the model society we wish to create and any educational policy must guarantee the right to learn above all other rights, allowing faith to become a matter of personal choice not of biological destiny. - Full equality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims. The above principles have become necessary for extracting the Arab people from the morass in which they are sinking. We mustn't listen to those who want to take us back to the time when people who were different had no rights and nations and borders were of no consequence. A future in which the imam is the ultimate authority is no future at all. The idea of modernity and secularism came to our countries with the colonialist expansion of the 19th century. Unfortunately it is still to take root among us. The first time the word "laity" appeared in our lexicons was in a French-Arabic dictionary in 1828. And yet there is no shortage of Muslim and Christian thinkers who championed the cause of secularism. Christian advocates of secularism include Georgy Zeidan, Shebli Shmeil, Yacoub Sarrouf, Mikhael Noeima, Jubran Khalil Jubran, Farah Antoine and Salama Moussa. Muslim proponents of modernity include Rifaah Rafei Al-Tahtawi, Qassim Amin, Lutfi Al-Sayed, Taha Hussein, Ali Abdel-Razeq, Ahmed Amin, and more recently Farag Foda and Al-Taher Haddad. We should also remember such brilliant writers as Morad Wahba, Sadeq Jalal Al-Azam, Aziz Al-Azama, Fouad Zakaria and Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid. Most champions of the nationalist movements were secularists and in most Arab countries the left was predominantly secular. But as nationalist models began to stumble fundamentalism took centre stage. From the late 1970s leftist intellectuals began to tone down their secular discourse, even in countries where sectarianism is a threat, opting instead for a more generalised but less specific approach to modernity. Often they advocate a "modernisation of Islam" or perhaps an "Islamisation of modernity". So far, nothing good has emerged from this shift. The only way forward is to revive the belief in the modern state in both form and content. This is the only way to bring the endless stream of Arab catastrophes to an end. Are we going to wake up now or forever be assigned to the darkest recesses of history?
