Political Islam or the Support of Islam Parties - Essay Example

April 22, Political Islam Introduction Political Islam or the support of Islam parties especially in Arab North Africa and the Middle East majorly comes from the fact that they are able to provide sufficient solution for problems faced by the citizens in these nations that are political, social or economic in nature. The failure by the existing regimes, which in most cases are authoritarian in nature and have closed political systems, to provide these services to the people makes it easier for the Islamist movements to amass a large following through the spread of Islam ideology (Ayoob 956.). This is achieved through networks of charitable organizations that also form the bases for political mobilization of the Islamists. The support for the Islamists stems from the fact that they are active and unified with proper organization in the provision of services to the population. For example, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and Egypt are actively involved in the management and development of resources in healthcare, education and infrastructure. Hamas rise and popularity in the Palestinian society can be attributed to the many social services that they provide to the society through its efficient network of social, sports and health facilities and libraries. Therefore, it is no wonder that in the elections held on January 2006, it won a massive 74 out of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council; thus, becoming the ruling party. The Hezbollah in Lebanon started as a military organization but transformed into a political outfit aimed at preventing the continued settlement of Israelis in parts of Lebanon especially the south. In the early 1990s, it transformed into an outfit for the solution of socio-economic problems of the society through integration into the Lebanese political system specifically the legislature. Their social welfare programs have included the provision of food rations to impoverished neighborhoods. This has increased their popularity in areas that the government has failed to provide utilities (Nicholas 73). The Muslim Brotherhood has been actively involved in the Egyptian civil society by taking up professional organizations making them efficient in the provision of social services. The failure by the state to provide these services to the people has endeared the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood making it involved in electoral politics in professional associations, trade unions and political parties (Haynes 241). War, Political Violence, Terrorism, Counter-terrorism in the Middle East since 1967 Since the Cold War era and the end of the Soviet Union, the United States has developed a bipartisan foreign policy known as selective engagement. This requires it to be applied differently depending on certain factors such as the issue at hand, the time of the issue and the preferences of the leader at the time of the occurrence. America’s policy in the engagement of war must be determined by factors such as the protection of national interests, the costs on the American citizen and the time of the engagement. Moreover, there is need for the availability of allies to shoulder the human, physical and financial burdens in the engagement and find a viable exit strategy that leaves the prevailing political environment in the country being stable than before (Lacquement 11) The Arab-Israeli conflict has been widely followed by the US regime through what is known as preventive and constructive diplomacy. Constructive diplomacy has involved assistance in the form of financial aid to Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan and the Palestine Authority including Israel. This is achieved through information sharing on matters of terrorism and countering them by offering viable arrangements in addressing the security situation in the region. Russia has also proposed cooperation by the superpowers in the region to mitigate fear in the regions (Breslauer 286). The Iran-Iraq was about religious schisms such as the Sunni-Shia, the Arab-Persians religious conflicts, disputes over borders and differences in political ideologies, as pushed by Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini. Iraq later launched a war against Iran due to their entrenched rivalries in the Gulf. In this war, the Soviet Union was much involved in the arming of Iraq while the US offered arms shipment to Iran showing their Cold War rivalries persisted (Hussein 168). The Iraqi-Kuwait War also known as the Gulf War started when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and annexed it as its territory in order to appropriate its oil resources. The US forces in conjunction with allies attacked Iraq in a 43-day war (Khadduri 94). This war continued despite the UN efforts, which included economic sanctions on Iraq and diplomatic means by other institutions failed to stop Iraq in its Kuwaiti invasion. Other efforts included the imposition of Iraqi no-fly zone by the UN, which was enforced by the US and British allied forces. Later, this culminated in the 2003 war between the US and Iraq that ended when the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled by the US in alliance with other alliance forces. The European Union has developed a strategy for combating the radicalization, recruitment to terrorism activities that are aimed at empowering what has been known as moderate elements through the constructive engagement with Islamist organizations, and religious sects that denounce the skewed ideology of Islamism put forward by al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups (Kausch 5). US Participation in the Middle East Crisis The United States has actively participated in the resolution of the crisis in the Middle East and other Arab nations; this mainly became more evident after the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. This period also coincided with a sharp increase in oppressive Arab nations who began a repression under the disguise of US-led war on terror. This was done through enactment of anti-terrorist laws that are repressive, dissolution of the countries’ legislatures and the abolition of term limits or postponement of elections making the rise of Islamism parties, which pushed the political Islam ideologies. The Bush administration linked the lack of democracy in the Middle East especially in Iraq and Afghanistan to the terrorist related activities bedeviling the region. The US believes that while it had tried to promote stability in the Middle East, extremism developed culminating in the September 11 attacks (“Question and Answer…”). Therefore, in order to remove these governments, the United States under Bush waged wars against terror regimes in the Middle East through interventions in the form of wars to remove the dictatorial regimes and terrorist organizations. President Bush came up with the doctrine of either “you are with us or against us”, this was meant to isolate international terrorism through the destruction of the Taliban and al-Qaeda networks in the Middle East and Afghanistan through selective engagement. The US removed repressive regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan without seeking UN resolutions to stamp out terrorism (Hilliard et al 131). The Obama regime has adopted an intervention strategy of incorporating the violent extremist Islamic groupings into non-violent processes to achieve democracy for example in Iraq; the US has co-opted Iraq insurgents together with the moderate elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Due to the unique case of Palestine in relation to its differences with Israel, the Obama administration is exploring ways of working with both the Hamas and Fatah factions for unity talks. Arab Spring The Arab Spring or Arab Awakening is a social movement aimed at the removal of the oppressive and autocratic regimes in the Arab states mainly in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen. The Arab Spring presented itself in different forms through uprisings, revolution and civil war in the respective countries. The major distinction between these two nations in terms of the conflict is that in the case of Libya, it fully developed into a civil war, while the case of Syria shows that it in Syria has not reached the point to be known as a fully-fledged war. In Libya, the Arab Spring changed into an internationally recognized civil war, as there was a harsh crackdown on the citizens, the absence of civil society to agitate for the rights and civil liberties of the citizens. This led to the grouping of people into their ethnic, religious and tribal affiliations leading to the conflict. The tension led to the militarization of what was later known as the coalition rebel forces and then reducing the war to territorial fights between the rebel forces and the loyalist troops. Libya’s case deteriorated into a war, as there was a wide international coverage of events taking place in Libya and the partial or full recognition of the Libyan National Transitional Council by nations especially the world superpowers. This situation is different from the case in Syria, as little or less distribution of territories effectively prevented the arming of protesters or the rebels who seem also to be disjointed unlike in Libya. The international media has also not been well represented in Syria due to control and censure from the regime and lack of commitment to the conflict resolution by regional and international players like Russia’s non-commitment for an armed response to depose the regime. Since the 1969 coup led by Muammar Gaddafi, the system adopted by him known as the “Jamahiriya” led to the civil society movement breakdown and centralized the government, which was composed of the leader’s own cronies and allies that made it impossible for the public to actively participate in policy making. This led to economic downturn failing to accrue benefits to the citizens who in turn turned against their government; therefore, the agenda of the regime became unresponsive to the needs and the will of the people who decided to revolt against it. The uprisings in Libya began on February 15, 2011 in Benghazi city with residents decrying the massive abuse of human rights, mismanagement of social welfare programs and the corruption in political circles culminating in the formation of The National Transitional Council (NTC) that was to consolidate the resistance efforts within the whole nation. The NTC made its agenda known to both the Libyan and the international community making it easier for them to solidify the mobilization of resources that would enable it end up the winner in the conflict. The Libyan forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi retaliated through bloody crackdown and massacre of the protesters and other innocent civilians. The protesters transformed from the peaceful demonstrations to bloody civil war that ended with the toppling and the death of Gaddafi on October 20, 2011 (BBC News). The harsh and repressive Libyan regime at the time, the division of Libya into territories controlled by the National Transitional Council and the regions controlled by the loyalist regime forces and the armament or militarization of the coalition rebel forces defined the Libya conflict transformation into a civil war. Through the armament of the coalition rebel forces, the NTC was able to respond in bloody fashion against the loyalist forces drawing the goodwill of the people. This is in contrast to Gaddafi’s refusal to admit that he had been isolated from the reality and a backlash of war was unstoppable. The harsh response by forces on both sides triggered the conflict attracting massive support from the population with no possibility left for ceasefire or conflict resolution or compromise. The role of organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, and Arab League helped in the toppling of the regime. The isolation of Libya by the aforementioned institutions was majorly to reduce the spillover of the war to surrounding allowing even regional players like nations in the Arab League to donate equipment and troops to the NTC. This in turn influenced the increase in the war between forces loyal the oppressive regime and the coalition rebel forces that eventually triumphed. The Syrian Arab Spring began on January 26 2011 and became a fully-fledged uprising on March 15 2011, which has resulted in a large number of casualties with conflicting figures from the regime or the international humanitarian organizations depending on which side of the conflict you are in. The Syrian conflict is characterized by protests, violence and the involvement of the armed forces loyal to the regime causing mayhem and casualties to the innocent civilians and the rebel strongholds. Though the conflict in Syria has not reached levels that can be classified as civil war, it may soon be classified so as the casualties keep on rising. The difference between this regime and the oppressive one in Libya is that, while the regime in Libya refused any form of institutional reforms, the Syrian regime has tried to win support of some sections of the public through little concessions in the reform of institutions in the regime. An example of such concessions is the release of political prisoners and the allowance of debate on the reforms, which later led to crackdown when such moves failed to assuage the public (“Popular Protest in North Africa…” 6). This war is also unique from Libya’s case as the war is organized in a decentralized manner and the opposition or rebel forces are disjointed with little or no militarization or mobilization. Inaction by the regional forces or nations like Russia and Turkey amongst others has not made it sufficient to make nations reach levels that can easily be characterized as civil war. The Syrian conflict is exacerbated by the long held acceptance of higher repression of the citizens in exchange for security and loyalty used to dupe the public by social welfare programs organized by the regime. The integration of the Alawite minority and Sunni sects in government is an example of this form of false representation. The protests in Syria have been contained in little proportions because of al-Assad’s popularity in some areas of Syria and the ability of the regime to consolidate and mobilize its military against the protesters. It has thus been able to control most cities away from rebel control apart from Homs thus denying the rebels territories from which they can plot onslaughts against the regime. Therefore, the major difference between uprisings in Libya and Syria is that in Syria there have been little reforms though both the regime remains largely harsh and repressive. In Libya, there was almost unanimous support for action while in Syria there is weak or blatant refusal of the international community to act. While Libya has moved on with the transitional council organizing elections that were fairly credible to install a new democratically elected government with a prime minister, the conflict in Syria rages on with President al-Assad strong hold on power and crackdown on rebels and protesters in siege cities. Works Cited “1969: Bloodless Coup in Libya.” BBC News. n.d. Web. 22 April 2013 Ayoob, Mohammed. "The Future of Political Islam: The Importance of External Variables." International Affairs. 81.5 (2005): 951-961. Print. Breslauer, George W. Soviet Strategy in the Middle East. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990. Print. Haynes, Jeffrey. Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics. London: Routledge, 2009. Print. Hilliard, Bryan, Tom Lansford, and Robert P. Watson. George W. Bush: Evaluating the President at Midterm. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004. Print. Hussein, Abdulrhman A. D. So History Doesn't Forget: Alliances Behavior in Foreign Policy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse, 2012. Print. Kausch, Kristina. Plus C?a Change: Europe's Engagement with Moderate Islamists. Madrid: FRIDE, 2009. Print. Khadduri, Majid, and Edmund Ghareeb. War in the Gulf, 1990-91: The Iraq-Kuwait Conflict and Its Implications. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Print. Lacquement, Richard. "Preaching After the Devil's Death: Shaping American Military Capabilities in the Post-Cold War Era." Peace Research Abstracts. 41.4 (2004). Print. Nicholas, Blanford, “Hizbullah and the IDF: Accepting New Realities Along the Blue Line,” The MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (Summer 2006): 73. Print. Popular Protest in North Africa and the Middle East (vii): The Syrian Regime's Slow-Motion Suicide. Damascus, Syria: International Crisis Group, 2011. Print. “Question and Answer at the American University of Cairo,” U.S Department of state, June 20, 2005. Web. 22 April 2013 http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48352.htm Read More