|
|
|
''Demands for democracy coming from unlikely corners of the Middle East'' By Rannie Amiri (YellowTimes.org) -- "I did not find elections in the jurisprudence books. I did not go into the Quran and the Prophetic tradition to derive the idea of elections. I derived the idea from a textbook on democracy." - Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani as quoted by Iraq Governing Council member Mowaffak al-Rubaie. The political unrest occurring in both Iraq and Iran over the past month may not be directly related, but on closer scrutiny, an inescapable connection is readily apparent. The calls for democracy in the Middle East are now emanating from what many would consider a most unlikely source: Shi'ite Muslims. Although having historically kept distant from political matters stemming
from centuries of Sunni Muslim domination and oppression, Iraq's Shia
religious leaders are now emerging as the driving force behind growing
demands for a democratic nation, much to the chagrin of the United States.
As a marja', his fatwas, or religious decrees, are strictly adhered to by those who have chosen to follow him. These can range from rules dealing with prayer, fasting, or divorce to issues affecting the broader community (Sunni Muslims have no equivalent figure or similar tradition of Marja'-e-Taqlid). During and after the recent war in Iraq, for example, Ayatollah Sistani instructed Shi'ites not to hinder American and British troops in their invasion or reconstruction efforts. Consequently, there has been very little, if any, violent resistance to Coalition forces in the Shia-dominated areas of the country (as opposed to that encountered in the "Sunni Triangle"). The Ayatollah's fatwas can also literally move hundreds of thousands in the opposite direction in an instant, as was the case when the United States downplayed his call that free elections be held in Iraq. Massive demonstrations and protests in Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf and Samawa in support of his position occurred overnight. He is not a figure to be taken lightly. At present issue is the United States' proposal that transfer of power to a sovereign Iraqi government be initiated through regional caucuses held in Iraq's eighteen provinces to select members to a national assembly, which would then appoint the interim government. Ayatollah Sistani recognized this as a back alley attempt to undermine the influence of Iraq's majority Shia by populating these caucuses with a roster of Pentagon favorites -- some of whom are currently serving on Iraq's Governing Council -- not to mention the direct supervision of the Americans over the process. He issued a fatwa insisting the national assembly be directly elected by the Iraqi people, on a one-man, one-vote basis. By circumventing free elections and holding regional caucuses, the United States hopes to ultimately install a government willing to allow American troops to remain in Iraq, permit the stewardship and privatization of its oil resources, as well one that will establish diplomatic relations with Israel. But Iraq is not Iowa, and President Bush and his administration are well aware that Ayatollah Sistani's formula will instead lead to the election of a popular government, composed not of political exiles and friends of Donald Rumsfeld, but Iraqis who remained in Iraq and suffered under Saddam Hussein. They will ask American troops to leave (reportedly, Ayatollah Sistani already instructs those who negotiate with Americans to conclude all their conversations by asking them when they plan on doing so), seek to nationalize Iraq's large oil reserves, and have no interest in making any overtures toward Israel. Such elections were deemed logistically impossible by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which they hope will buy them a little more time. They have now "consulted" with the United Nations to confirm this, in an attempt to appease Ayatollah Sistani. Next door in Shia Iran, there have also been demonstrations, but of a different nature. The Guardian Council, an unelected body led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, under whose authority all laws and candidates for political office are approved, has disqualified nearly half of the reformist-minded candidates out of a pool of 8,000 vying in the February 20th parliamentary elections. Included are 83 sitting Members of Parliament, who are currently holding a sit-in protest and have threatened a hunger strike if not reinstated. President Mohammad Khatami has indicated he may lead a mass resignation of MPs, ministers, governors, and vacate his own post in response if all are not freely allowed to participate in these elections. Such a move would surely throw Iran into political turmoil. These reformist candidates do not represent the interests of the former Shah, as do many of Iran's opposition groups, nor desire the overthrow of what could be called a nascent Islamic democracy, as does the formerly Iraq-based militant opposition group Mujahideen-e-Khalq. Instead, many of them are bearded, black and white-turbaned individuals who oppose the rule of an unelected few, and wish to bring greater freedoms to Iranian society. The Middle East is a region where democracy and its principles have always languished, no doubt in part due to the Western world's support and maintenance of its numerous dictators, kings, and emirs in order to further their own economic, political or social agenda. In Iraq and Iran, two different political situations are unfolding, both led by Shi'ite Muslims, to address the ability of the people to directly elect their representatives, unhindered by either a foreign occupation or a domestic oligarchy. Ayatollah Sistani is far from being an activist marja' seeking political office, as was the case with the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who advocated Waliyat-e-Faqih, or the authority/governance of the religious jurist. He has expressed no desire to have Iraq run as a religious state similar to Iran, but does insist Iraq maintain an Islamic character and identity. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein now leading to the emergence of previously suppressed political expression in Iraq, and the reforms instituted by President Khatami manifesting itself in the current conflict between conservatives and reformers in Iran, one is forced to ask: will the Shia be the vanguards for change and democracy in the Middle East? In contrast to its stated position of supporting democracies in the Arab and Muslim worlds, the United States has done little to foster change in either nation. In Iraq, they are desperate to obtain a belated United Nations' blessing to ostensibly placate Ayatollah Sistani. We can already see influential Washington insiders, such as David Frum and Richard Perle, having the ear of the President, advocating toppling the Iranian government (as stated in their book, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror). Such a scenario is eerily similar to the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister, Dr. Muhammad Mosaddeq. It would be incorrect to say, therefore, that the United States has not heard these demands for democracy in the Middle East. Rather, they have lamentably made the deliberate choice not to listen. [Rannie Amiri is an observer, commentator, and exponent of issues dealing with the Arab and Islamic worlds.]
|
|
|
