Welfare vital in Middle East

By Yuri O. Thamrin

JAKARTA (JP): Two recent events serve as reminders that political Islam will continue to have its say in defining the politico-security phenomena in the Middle East.

First, al-Gama'a al-Islamija recently killed 57 innocent vacationers in the Temple of Queen Hatshepsut in Egypt. The attack is only one in a series of cowardly attempts against civilians and has profoundly shocked the world.

The terrorist group used Islam as a cover for its abhorrent action, for which no justification can be found in Islamic teachings. The group deserves the strongest possible condemnation.

The second event took place in Turkey, albeit in different political context. Here, the Islamic-oriented Welfare Party -- the largest in Turkish Parliament -- is to be declared illegal. The party leader, Necmettin Erbakan, is fighting a last-ditch attempt to prevent his party from being closed down.

However, his efforts may be futile since those who want the party banned, including the military high command, say it has a recent agenda to introduce Islamic fundamentalism and challenge the secular state.

The lesson to learn from these events may be stark and simple: political Islam is more and more regarded as a serious threat to political stability at global, regional and national levels.

Remember Samuel Huntington and his "Clash of Civilizations". He maintains that the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War era is not economic or ideological but cultural. The wars of kings were replaced in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by wars of nations, then by wars of ideologies, and now by wars of civilizations.

The next war, Huntington implies, will be between Islamic civilization and the West or between Confucian Asian civilization and the West.

Huntington's views have provoked heated intellectual debates. For some, his insinuation about the clash between Islam and the West is regarded as myopic. To his critics, the Islamic world is argued to be far from monolithic.

In other words, there is no such thing as an "Islamic bloc" threatening the West ideologically the way the "Eastern communist bloc" used to be antithetical to the West during the Cold War era.

The Islamic world is far from being able to unite, much less to form a bloc. Moslem countries are divided along different national interests. Their foreign policy orientations and priorities are different and, at times, conflicting.

Their relations with the West are not uniform: some of them are considered strategic allies, while some others are pariah.

Furthermore at societal level, many Islamic groupings are divided along sectarian lines, having different religious interpretations and following different schools of Law.

During the Gulf War, for instance, Moslem countries and societies were deeply divided. Some of them joined the international coalition against Sadam Hussein, while some others remained neutral or opposed it.

Thus, the assumption of an Islamic bloc threatening the West is not accurate. Sayyed Hossein Nasr, a noted Islamic scholar, may be right when he argues that "Islam is not at all menacing to the Western way of life. On the contrary, the West has long threatened the Islamic world with its intervention in the name of securing its interests within the Islamic world."

Regardless of the above debate, one thing is particularly true in the Middle East: political Islam has gained a stronger ground than ever. Fuller (1996) noted that political Islam has emerged in almost every country in the region: from Algeria and Morocco to Saudi Arabia and Jordan and from Turkey and Tunisia to Egypt and Syria.

These phenomena have made the existing regimes shaky. Some observers argue that the upsurge of political Islam has been influenced by several factors, namely political deprivation, economic chaos and sociocultural dislocation in society.

Here, the key words are poverty and lack of political participation. Consequently, political Islam could easily draw support from the down-trodden in society, whose number in the Middle East grows in millions every year.

In Algeria, for instance, the authoritarian National Liberation Front (FLN) regime has misruled the country for almost four decades, squandered "oil money" and brought the economy to a shambles. It also pursued westernization and secularization which was insensitive to the cultural and religious heritage of the society.

Today, the failing economy creates massive unemployment -- some 30 percent of the population may never have jobs -- lack of housing, social aimlessness and a growing crisis in food production.

At the same time, 60 percent of the population are under 25 years of age and the birth rate is one of the highest in the world. Further, the political system is too "exclusive" and incapable of recognizing people's aspirations, much less accommodating their demands for change.

Considering this colossal economic and political chaos, no wonder the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) has gained strong credentials as an alternative to the corrupt regime. This is particularly true, since FIS is cleverly shrouding its messages by using Islamic symbolism, which is close to the people's cultural and religious heritage.

Another example is Egypt. Its steadily weakening economy makes political Islam more popular in the country. Its revenue dropped by nearly one-third, its debt service soaked up almost 32 percent of the country's foreign exchange revenues and its open-door policy (Infitah) has created an ever-widening economic gap.

Its population has grown from 22 million in 1952 to 50 million in 1972 and is projected at 70 million in the year 2000. More than half of its food requirements have to be imported. Its failing economy has created huge unemployment and underemployment, particularly in urban centers.

Thus, this difficult situation leads to a prediction that political Islam will become a growing force and the only one capable of successfully challenging the current regime in the years ahead.

In light of the growing strength of political Islam, what are the responses of the ruling regimes? In fact, many regimes in the Middle East have resorted to violence to quell it.

One classic example is Syria. The government has long announced that "membership of the Moslem Brotherhood will be considered a crime punishable by death" (Pipes, 1986).

In 1982, the government destroyed the City of Hamah, the stronghold of the Moslem Brotherhood. The authorities sealed the city and reportedly brought in up to 12,000 troops, 100 tanks, 130mm artillery systems, helicopter gunships and even jet bombers. After shelling the city for some days, the troops moved in for house-to-house fighting. Civilian casualties were estimated at anywhere between 3,000 to 35,000. After the fighting, little of the city center remained standing.

Egypt is another example underlining the resolve of the ruling regimes in the Middle East to crush political Islam. In 1989, as many as 10,000 Islamic militants were arrested. Dragnets were routinely conducted by the government. Thousands were held without charge. The Arab Human Rights Organization repeatedly accused the government of routine torture of its opponents.

It can be argued that a violent approach in dealing with political Islam will only result in "spurious" political stability. It will never provide the right answer to the root causes of the problem, namely poverty, crisis in political legitimacy and sociocultural dislocation.

Furthermore, violence will only beget violence. A better answer must be found far beyond merely brandishing "gun and sword".

Indeed, a policy reversal for providing more welfare and creating "civil society" is necessary. People have to be reassured that their plight is going to be sincerely addressed. If not, they will be susceptible to a "dead-end" mentality and, as a result, more prepared to embrace radicalism.

Also, governments have to allow more political participation to ensure much-needed improvement. This strategy will hopefully provide credible hope to the people and, consequently, will prevent them from pursuing, or tacitly supporting, further extremism.

The writer is an observer of international politics and is currently pursuing postgraduate study at the Australian National University.