Demands for Democracy Coming From
Unexpected Corners of Middle East
Rannie Amiri
"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 unexpected source:
Shi'a Muslims.
Although having historically kept
distant from political matters stemming from centuries of Sunni
Muslim domination and oppression, Iraq's Shi’a religious leaders are
now emerging as the driving force behind growing demands for a
democratic nation, much to the chagrin of the United States.
The last face average Americans or
others in the Western world would associate with appeals for free
elections in Iraq would be a 73 year-old black-turbaned,
white-bearded, reclusive "cleric" who very rarely leaves his home in
Najaf. His name is Ayatollah Ali al Sistani and he carries the
distinction of being a Marja'-e-Taqlid, or Source of Emulation, the
highest rank which can be attained in Shi’a theological studies, and
one of only five in the world. Rarely granting an audience to
outsiders (including Iraq's civil administrator Paul Bremer), and
speaking only through his trusted representatives, Ayatollah Sistani
wields enormous influence over Iraq's 15 million Shi'a Muslims and,
indeed, those worldwide.
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 Shi’a-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 Shi’a 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-person, 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. Based on United Nations’
recommendations, elections will be postponed until early 2005, and
no one is quite clear to whom the United States will have over
sovereignty at the end of June 2004.
Next door in Shi’a 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, disqualified nearly half of the reformist-minded
candidates out of a pool of 8,000 who vied in the February 20th
parliamentary elections. Included were 83 sitting Members of
Parliament, who held peaceful sit-ins to protest their
disqualification.
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.
President Mohammad Khatami
threatened to 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. Ultimately, some candidates were
reinstated, but the vast majority were not. Elections were held and
predictably, the current members of parliament reflect a more
conservative tone. None believe, however, this marks the end of the
reformist movement within Iran. Rather, these are typical setbacks
and obstacles faced by those seeking to change a system, yet work
within its confines.
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'a
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 Shi'a 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.
ACTIONS:
>> email this
article to a friend >>
react to this
article >> more articles
Note:
Please email your
opinion to op-ed@majalla.org; Op-Ed articles are not
peer-reviewed.
New Op-Ed articles
are published monthly, and as special edition when warranted
|
