|
|
|
|
SPEAKING
FREELY
Defeating Islamic
fundamentalism
By Mark N Katz
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click here
if you are interested in
contributing.
Will
Islamic fundamentalism eventually fizzle out the
way Marxism-Leninism did? While Western -
especially US - military force played an important role
in containing Marxism-Leninism, it did not defeat
it. The downfall of Marxism-Leninism came about
instead through its being discredited as a failed
ideology among those who had ruled in its name.
While (primarily US) military
force has undoubtedly played an important role
in containing Islamic fundamentalism after
September 11, 2001, there is strong reason to believe
that the use of force alone will not defeat
Islamic fundamentalism. Indeed, even the successful use
of US military force does not appear to
discredit this ideology among its adherents, but
to strengthen their belief in it. If the death or
capture of Islamic militants leads to others -
however misguided - willingly stepping forth to
replace them, then the "war against terrorism"
will be endless.
But if Islamic
fundamentalism cannot be defeated from without,
can it be discredited from within the way
Marxism-Leninism was? It is impossible to predict
when, or even if, something like this might occur.
There are signs, however, indicating is has begun
to happen:
The Taliban, for all its
internationalist revolutionary rhetoric, was a
predominantly Pashtun movement that forcibly extended its
domination over most of Afghanistan's
non-Pashtuns. Part of the reason the US-led
intervention in Afghanistan was able to
succeed so quickly was that non-Pashtuns (and even
some Pashtuns) were eager to collaborate with the
United States to get rid of the Taliban. This is
consistent with other cases where a transnational
revolutionary ideology failed to overcome narrow
ethnic or national differences.
The oldest Islamic revolutionary regime - Iran
- has been undergoing a chronic crisis of
legitimacy. Anti-American rhetoric cannot hide the
regime's own failings. Young, educated Iranians
have become increasingly cynical about the wisdom
of the regime's self-appointed leadership. They
want the country to be run by elected leaders
instead. Whatever the appeal Islamic
fundamentalism may have in countries where it has
not yet come to power, Iran's experience suggests
that popular support for it declines the longer it
has been in power.
Some Muslims reportedly welcomed the
attacks of September 11, 2001, as "blows
against imperialism" that enhanced the legitimacy and prestige of
those who launched them. But as al-Qaeda and
its associates have increasingly launched attacks
on fellow Muslims, doubts and fears arise about its
ultimate intentions. A Muslim world free of
Western influence may appeal to the emotions of
many. But what would such a world be like for
Muslims themselves? This question becomes more
urgent as it becomes increasingly clear that
al-Qaeda is not simply opposed to the West, but to
Muslims whom it deems insufficiently religious. As
Muslims come to fear what the implications for
their own lives might be like afterward,
optimistic assumptions about the benevolent nature
of an Islamic fundamentalist revolution will
erode.
What
can the United States and its allies do
to increase the prospect that Islamic
fundamentalism will become discredited within the
Muslim world? One thing should be clear: military
means alone will not accomplish this task. Other
means, then, will be needed if Islamic
fundamentalism is to be discredited within the
Muslim world. What might these be?
Transnational revolutionary ideologies such as Islamic
fundamentalism link many localized conflicts (such
as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Kashmir and
Chechnya) together into an overarching narrative that points
to a common cause for their
grievances, identifies common allies, and proposes a common
solution. To the extent that specific
Muslim-vs-non-Muslim conflicts can be resolved, the incentive to join
a transnational revolutionary movement will
be reduced for those to whom these conflicts are
most salient. For example, if the
Arab/Israeli, Kashmiri or Chechen conflicts could be
resolved peacefully, Palestinians, Pakistanis
and/or Chechens would presumably have far less
incentive to join forces with Islamic fundamentalists
in conflicts that are still being fought elsewhere.
There are those who are attracted
to the Islamic fundamentalist revolution because
they see it as the only means available
for overthrowing US-backed authoritarian regimes
in the Muslim world. US and other Western support for
democratization in the Muslim world might serve to
undercut the desire for revolutionary change. And
as Islamic fundamentalists participate in
elections and government, many (if not all) of
them might become more moderate. This already
appears to be happening in Afghanistan as a result
of the first presidential elections held there in
late 2004 and in Iraq as a result of the National
Assembly elections held on January 30.
Resolving intractable Muslim-vs-non-Muslim
conflicts and democratizing pro-Western regimes
will, of course, be extraordinarily difficult.
Failing to accomplish these tasks, however, may
only serve to increase the likelihood that Islamic
fundamentalist revolutions will occur in more
countries.
Like Marxist-Leninist regimes
during the Cold War, these regimes may well become
discredited internally over time, and enthusiasm
for Islamic fundamentalism is likely to die out
among those who have direct experience of life
under it. There are important signs that this
process has reached an advanced stage in Iran. But
this is a time-consuming process that is highly
costly in terms of human lives. Muslim nations -
as well as the rest of the world - would be better
off if they could avoid this process through a
combination of conflict resolution and
democratization. If we can help Muslim nations
accomplish this, we will do much to discredit
Islamic fundamentalism - something that will help
both the Muslim and the non-Muslim worlds.
Mark N Katz is a professor of
government and politics at George Mason
University. His writings on revolution include
Revolutions and Revolutionary Waves (St
Martin's Press, 1997), Reflections on
Revolutions (St Martin's Press, 1999), and
ed, Revolution: International Dimensions
(CQ Press, 2001).
Speaking
Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows
guest writers to have their say. Please click here
if you are interested in
contributing.
(Copyright Mark N
Katz, 2005) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Middle East Sex News
|
|
|
