Runnymede or Stampede: How to Avoid a Mob Over Magna Carta in the Maldives

Sultan in Procession, 1940s

Last Monday, President Nasheed invited me to join him for lunch at the UK House of Lords. To my left sat Baroness D’Souza, Convenor of the Crossbench in the UK parliament; to her left sat President Nasheed and on his left was our host, Lord Bilimoria. To my right was Baron Desai, with whom I chit chatted about the respective merits of Marx and Chicago School and their relevance to the Maldives and how the Maldives could benefit from his Lordship’s expertise as an Economics Professor at LSE. To his right was Minister Aslam and to his right High Commissioner Farah.

Soon enough my attention was drawn to the conversation on politics that was going on to my left between the Baroness and the President. At an appropriate pause in their conversation, I decided I would join the political discussion, especially when I learned that the Baroness was soon going to meet Her Majesty the Head of the Commonwealth and discuss themes for the upcoming Commonwealth Heads Meeting in Trinidad.

“History has a way of repeating itself, and if that is the case, in 2014, the people of the Maldives will again take to the streets,” I said half-jokingly, and President Nasheed, who actually conceals how much of an intellectual and scholar that he really is, gave a knowing smile.

The Baroness, with a little shock, as I might have expected, asked me why I said that. “We have a strong tradition of that, and an observable regularity in the timing of these events, the people took to the streets in 1933, in 1953, in 1974, in 1993, in 2004 and therefore quite possibly in 2014,” I continued. And I briefly explained to her what these dates were, careful not to upset anyone at the table.
But after doing that, I also told her that a mob in 2014 was not a foregone conclusion.

“There are very clear ways to avoid that—what I am saying is that, if democratic consolidation does not make good progress, by 2014, the people will again express their frustration with the way they are being governed, especially if their aspirations for a proper democracy remain unfulfilled,” I quickly added.

“I hope that by democracy you don’t mean electoral democracy,” the Baroness said.

“That’s exactly the point,” I concurred. “What we have in the Maldives since autumn is a democratically elected government, but we are still a long way from liberal democracy. I expect the people to give us 5 years to consolidate democracy, but they are unlikely to usher in 2015 without enjoying the fruits of liberal democracy,” I explained.

2015 will be a watershed year. The Millennium Development Goals are to be met by that date. We may or may not measure up to all the targets.

Magna Carta 1215


But, more than the MDGs, 2015 is also a key year for reformists in the Maldives, particularly for MDP and all those who, like me, support the MDP. Why? 2015 marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. It was in June 1215, at a place called Runnymede that King John signed the Magna Carta.

The Maldives be represented at Runnymede in June 2015 – and none more appropriate than President Nasheed to be there. But we would not like to go to Runnymede merely as an electoral democracy—we will want to be a proper democracy, with working institutions and real people power. And I wouldn’t want to miss out on that event, if I am alive and kicking, and neither will MDP.

I told our hosts about the time President Nasheed and I spent in the UK, him at Liverpool and me at Aberystwyth (and I didn't have to explain to her why I went to read Strategic Studies at Coleg Prifysgol Cymru!), and how we identified with the British traditions of democracy, although local circumstances had necessitated, in my judgment, ushering in a US-style presidential system in the Maldives.

View of Old College, Aberystwyth

I then went along to explain to the Baroness about the challenges that still remain in terms of consolidating democracy in the Maldives. President Nasheed, who had made a very good impression on the Baroness with his keynote address at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Conference on Climate Change at Portcullis House in the morning, agreed.

I cited Professor Larry Diamond at the Stanford University, and his concept of a predatory society as opposed to a liberal democracy. I stressed the need to increase horizontal accountability mechanisms, such as the judiciary, the anti-corruption commission, parliamentary oversight, the rule of law and the right to information.

I also highlighted the need to strengthen vertical accountability mechanisms such as issue-based NGOs, a vibrant and independent media, and elections that were free of intimidation and corruption.

I emphasised the need for transitional justice, and lamented the fact that yesterday’s corruption was yielding tremendous political gains today—and how therefore corrupt gains made yesterday were subverting democracy-building in the Maldives today.

Professor Larry Diamond



Whenever I meet diplomats and other stakeholders, I often repeat to them lessons from our history. The point of it all is to impress upon them the need to assist the government to consolidate democracy and strengthen constitutional rule.

The history of the Maldives is replete with instances of the people deposing governments they didn’t like and installing governments of their choice. In that sense, people power has always been part of the political life in the Maldives.

Tradition has it that the Sultans ruled at the pleasure of the “Havaru”, loosely translated to mean the people of the wards of Male. The oral history of the Maldives, as told by Buraaru, frequently refers to the summoning of the Havaru to depose and install Sultans.

The generally lengthy reigns witnessed since the 19th century somehow had eroded this function of the havaru, but people power returned with the introduction of constitutional rule in 1932, as an extra-constitutional means to exercise people power, and always exposing the weakness of our governance systems.

Thus, in 1933, at the instigation of the Sultan, the people took to the streets and tore up the Constitution, and dispatched the authors of the Constitution to the British Governor’s mansion in Colombo. (The Westminster House talks of 2006, which President Nasheed, then under house arrest, and I, as Foreign Minister had set up, took place with one of the grandsons of one of those dispatched to Colombo in 1933!)
Twenty-years after that crisis, on 31 August 1953, the people again took to the streets and mobbed and killed the first president of the Maldives.

The people were back at it, albeit in unsuccessfully, on 13 June 1974, to depose President Nasir, who walked away four years later.

In 1993, a similar event nearly took place, but the Bimbi Force was pre-empted by the intervention of foreign soldiers brought in by the government to carry out a military exercise. Many will recall that as MPs were voting on a candidate for the presidency, there was a climate of fear induced by the treatment meted out to the potential challenger, Ilyas Ibrahim, and by the echo of gunfire in parts of Male.

But the people came back with a vengeance in 2003. I remember telling a nervous government in July 2004 that protests to depose the government will take place between 21 and 31 August – because Gayoom was scheduled to be in China and because the period coincided with the arrest and subsequent mobbing of Amin Didi.

As it turned out, the events took place slightly earlier, on 12-13 August.

Of course, the most successful display of people power happened in 2004, setting in train events that culminated in the installation of a new government in 2008.

Of course, there are some who think that the current drive for democracy has already failed—those who expected the country to go from darkness to light in one day. But I reckon that most people understand that democracy-building is a process and not an event, and will have the patience to wait till 2014.

Now, the new target date for an irrepressible display of people power is 2014- one year after the next elections, and one year ahead of the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta.

And it does not matter who wins the next elections: whoever who heads this country by 2015 must either be celebrating in Runnymede or be running away on a stampede! In short, it is democracy or bust!

Memorial to Magna Carta at Runnymede, Berkshire


And so what should be the message to Her Majesty?

My instant response was to stress the need to give some real teeth to the CMAG—the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which now acts only after a government is toppled in a coup. I told the Baroness about the frustration since 2004 of the Maldives pro-democracy movement over the CMAG and its inability to pressure the government of Maldives to expedite reform.

“Today, 2 out of 3 countries in the world have democratically elected governments, and the ratio is higher in the Commonwealth; the Harare Declaration must be enforced, the Millbrook Action Programme must be implemented, the CMAG must be given a wider mandate to promote democracy and censure illiberal democracies: you will be surprised by how much dictators loved to be loved and therefore how much they hate to be hated, and the CMAG must be empowered to condemn dictators and embrace democrats,” I said to her.

“Democracy today is a universal value, and the Commonwealth must not be coy about promoting democracy,” I said with all the seriousness that I could muster.

“The CMAG must respond not just to breaches of the constitution but must help to strengthen constitutionalism in countries, like the Maldives, where the government and the people alike aspire to do so,” I added.

Ahmed Shaheed for OSA

Be Careful What You Mean, If You Know What I Mean!

At the Tallberg Foundation in Stockholm, President Nasheed spoke about “Saving Paradise”, and I joined him in a Panel Discussion thereafter. After a while, we opened the floor for discussion and a gentleman in a grey jacket on the far left raised his hand. The moderator said, “Yes, sir, the coloured gentleman in the back, please go ahead.” The gentleman promptly joked, “Well, we are all coloured one way or another,” and proceeded to ask the question.

The incident reminded me of a few incidents where I had had difficulty using the right word.

I remember a conversation I had long ago with a young Maldivian who was going to school in India. We could never agree on what the word “indigenous” meant! He insisted that it meant “made in India”, and when I explained to him that it meant that something was native to a country or produced in that particular country, he simply uttered, “exactly!” We were in India and there was no way I could win the argument.

But I seemed to have learned nothing from that experience. A young Maldivian, I must say quite an educated person, angrily confronted me on the street one day, in February 2005, claiming that I had used disparaging language in reference to his beloved party, the MDP, in a BBC interview. He was furious and accused me of calling MDP a “suthulhi goani” – or, gunny bag! I told him that I said no such thing, but he insisted that I had called his party a “gunny bag” or "jute bag"!

Well, I told him that I had not used any insulting language but simply said that MDP was a “rag bag”. And rag bag simply means an assortment of unconnected things.

The point I was making was that, at that time, in my view,( and I see it differently today), MDP were a diverse group who shared a common hatred of Gayoom but not much besides, if you consider that there were mullahs and secular liberals in the party.
Rag bag is not a pejorative term. Granted that “rags” are not complimentary; and neither are bags, perhaps. But a rag bag is not just the addition of two words. I told him that “rag bag” was an idiom, although by now I was feeling a bit like an idiot for having used this particular idiom.

Some words have serious consequences. On 16 September 2001, speaking from the White House, President Bush said, “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is gonna take a while.” This immediately sent shivers through the Middle East and Europe, where the “crusades” referred to the wars over holy lands between Muslim Middle East and Christian Europe. Bush insisted that it was not a war against Islam, but the word played into the hands of the Jihadists in the Middle East. The statement was played time and time again over the airwaves in the Middle East, and it evoked fears of a clash of civilisations.

The term “secular” is also a similarly loaded word. For most Muslims, the word evokes enemy images, a forceful trampling upon of the rights of Muslim communities, of forced exile, imprisonment, torture and worse. Isn’t that what happened in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Iraq? “Secular modernisers” ravaged Muslim communities and were autocratic, repressive and brutal. In Europe, however, the experience was quite the reverse, and the European secular ideal rose out of the death and destruction of the religious wars. Experience had taught Muslim communities that secularism produced dictatorships, although intrinsically there is no such association. So when secular liberals in the Maldives talk with Islamists on this subject, they are talking past each other.

“Emergency rule” was another such term. I reckon many of the Old Guard were quite at ease with the use of the term. After all, that is the norm in Egypt. But for me, and for many of my peers, “emergency rule” brings to mind the things that happened in India in 1975-77, when India was under emergency rule. I am sure the Old Guard never understood that many people had developed allergies to emergency rule.

Today, “privatisation” is becoming a confusing word in the Maldives. For some it is a reference to the Chicago School and Milton Friedman, and to a proven strategy to increase prosperity for all. For others, as recently argued by Dr Riffat Afeef in an article in Miadhu, it evokes images of imperialism, greed and corruption. It would be good to clarify what we mean exactly in this evolving debate, before the people develop allergies to it.

When President Nasheed used the term “nulafaa” during the recent parliamentary campaign, I thought he meant “mean”. But I was surprised that many of his own supporters translated that to mean “ruthless”! Democratically-elected presidents do not have the wherewithal to become ruthless; but all politicians can be mean. And that is not the same thing.

Anyone for a red herring?

Ahmed Shaheed for the OSA

Iran: More than an Election Outcome

Last week, as I accompanied President Nasheed out of the Royal Palace in Stockholm, we heard loud chants coming from a crowd of people with placards just at the foot of the castle. We could read some of the placards in English saying, “Where is my vote?”, and instantly knew that this was about the vote in Iran. It is said that politicians are drawn to crowds like bees to honey -- we made our way towards the crowd.
Dressed in formal wear in a warm Stockholm mid-summer evening, the crowd instantly surmised that there was a VIP amongst us, someone who could broadcast their plea. As a small section of the crowd tore away and approached us, we introduced ourselves, and we gave them a “three-in-one” “instant mix” of the political struggles in the Maldives on democracy, free elections and people power.
The crowd were in fact protesting against Ericsson, pleading them not to provide the means with which the Iranian authorities were jamming the communication abilities of the Iranian people – we had just had chit-chats with the CEO of Ericsson up in the Kings Garden at the Reception for the participants of Volvo Ocean Race, which the Ericsson team had just won.
I feel for the Iranian people—quite apart from who won or lost the elections. It is a nation of great potential, but on the knife-edge of a number of tipping points. And when I heard about the election results and the responses in Iran to those announcements, I recalled an Iranian I had shared an office with for three years in Brisbane, in the early 1990s.
His name was Hossein, and, like me, he was doing a PhD at the University of Queensland. His thesis was a bomb: “How and Why One Party State Regimes Fall?” Of course, in the frenzy of the post-Cold War world, his comparative study was focussed on the dictators that were falling like ten-pins those days. And he also included in his study the fall of the Shah.
I agreed to proof-read his work. Over the three years, I got to read and re-read the chapters that he was writing, and I attended the seminars that he was required to hold on his research. His work was good.
But I did not realise just how good his research and hypotheses were until I had to put them to test in the Maldives from 2004 to 2008, to contribute to managing a disintegrating political order and then to tip over: to repair Humpty Dumpty long enough for a peaceful transition, and then to secure that transition.
Hossein’s thesis held its ground in the “soft power” showdown with the Gene Sharps and the Ot Pors, who could not match Hossein’s work for its intensity, clarity, and objectivity. I am not saying that there is a direct contradiction amongst them, but that whereas Sharp and Ot Por were focussed on advocacy of their point of view, Hossein’s was a dispassionate research which examined the topic from competing perspectives. I dare say that insights from Hossein’s research accounted for the confidence and conviction with which I took on the old guard, pushing for change from within to create space for people power, and then moving on to join the people in that space. To Hossein and his research I owe a great debt.
I have not kept in touch with Hossein for a number of years now. Whatever happened to his thesis, the events unfolding in Iran now are going to judge his thesis. What is unfolding in Iran right now is not about who won or lost the election; but about what will prevail – people power or state power? Do state institutions have enough credibility to exert sufficient authority? Or will any attempts to exert such authority only strengthen those who oppose the regime? Or would the failure to exert such authority not result in conceding more ground to the protestors? Or would not the assertion of control just become the tipping point?
Will the regime not crack under the pressure of widespread protests? Are not dissenting opinions among senior clerics the first signs of this? The question then is: does the regime have enough authority to exercise sufficient power AND enough power to exercise the necessary authority? Will soft power draw enough credibility to defeat hard power? Or could there be a role for what is today called smart power?
Judging by Hossein’s thesis, as of Saturday, Iran has not yet reached the tipping point. Things can still go either way. And things are moving very fast—and at this moment, it looks like they can take a life of their own, tipping the balance in favour of people power.
And of course, whichever way the events go, what is at stake is not Hossein’s thesis. What is at stake is something of great strategic significance, which could bring about a historic triumph or calamitous tragedy to the Muslim Ummah.
And at the end of the day, what drew President Nasheed and me to that crowd protesting outside the Royal Castle in Stockholm was that recognition—that either a great tragedy or historic triumph was in the making. Where human life is at risk, doing nothing is never an option for a politician who just picked up the Anna Lindh Prize for Human Rights, or for any human being who believes in the sanctity of life and people power.

Submitted by Ahmed Shaheed for the OSA
____________

Murder Most Foul

The abuse, torture and murder of an 8-month baby is the sickest story I have ever come across in the Maldives. I was utterly shocked and outraged by what I heard. How can people descend to such cruelty?

I had heard that Hon Nasheed MP had submitted a bill to the parliament to address some of these issues. Good, I thought. Of course, there must be greater legal protection given to children and requisite changes made to the legal framework. But changing the legal framework alone will not be enough.

We must really ask ourselves how safe our children are? Does the government have appropriate policies to detect abuse and deter abuse? And is there something that we, the people, can do? A successful strategy must essentially focus on detection, deterrence and prevention.

I suppose no one was surprised to hear that drug abuse was related to the horrible crime. A society in which drug abuse is so widespread will provide safety to no one. Life will be cheap in a country where drug kingpins ostensibly operate with impunity. A polity in which corruption pays will throw up unspeakable crimes.

The brutal murder must make us all stop and think about where the country is headed to, why we have reached this horrible point, and what we are doing wrong. Is life becoming so cheap in this country? Have we lost our souls?

For me, a rude awakening came in 1997, when the government put 14 new islands to tender as tourist resorts. There was a frantic rush by ministers to team up with businessmen to bid for these islands. And there were businessmen frantically trying to enlist Ministers to team up with them to submit bids. To me it seemed that businessmen believed that without a Minister as a partner, they would not win a resort. And worse than that, the Ministers seemed to believe that their name would help secure a resort! What I am saying? The elites of this country had sold their souls, for corruption and material greed.

Such has been the greed and spiritual decay of the elites of this country that it has catapulted entire sections of society into despair, destitution, decadence, and drug abuse. Ours therefore is a society coming apart at the seams, descending into a nightmarish hell. It is one that is unable to care for the weak, vulnerable and helpless, because its strong and powerful have sold their souls to reckless greed, rampant corruption and other shameful deeds. There is so much anger, so much violence and so much hatred just bubbling beneath the surface, that so many of us are probably randomly-timed walking bombs.

For too long, our laws have been used to help the near and dear and punish others. For too long, justice has only served the interests of the powerful. For too long we have allowed our children to be consumed by drugs and violence. For too long we have blatantly promoted double standards and used ethical standards as a tool of social and political hegemony. For too long, the Maldives has been a tale of two cities. In a society in which priority is given to the protection of the rich and powerful, the weak and vulnerable are exposed to the most heinous and unspeakable crimes.

So a bill in parliament, while necessary, is not enough. It is time that we begin to really care about people, promote civil society groups, and allocate enough resources to protect the weakest and the most vulnerable.

Freedom of Expression and Defamation: the Kosovo Test Case

OSA welcomes that initiatives being taken in the Maldives to strengthen the freedom of expression. It also welcomes the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr Frank La Rue and his calls for measures to strengthen freedom of expression in the Maldives.

The OSA would like to note the contributions that its patrons continue to make to promote freedom of expression in the Maldives. As Frank La Rue noted, the former Attorney-General, Dr Hassan Saeed had parked the provisions in the penal code that criminalised defamation- an extremely difficult thing to do at a time when Dhivehi Observer and Koimala were taking press freedom to the gutter.

Former Justice Minister Jameel was quite enthusiastic about providing civil remedies for defamation – as an alternative to criminalising slander and libel.

Former and current Foreign Minister Shaheed always spoke in defence of a free press, and had indeed invited Frank La Rue to undertake the visit to the Maldives. It was he who began to celebrate Press Freedom Day in the Maldives, back in 2006.

Despite being champions of freedom of expression, Dr Shaheed last week filed a defamation suit against Umar Naseer. This has come as a surprise for some people, who had hoped that Dr Shaheed would not take anyone to court on a defamation suit. It was he who had demanded in 2007, when civil remedies for defamation were being introduced, that all ministers must make a public declaration never to pursue even civil proceedings against defamation.

So last week came surprising U-turn, or so it would appear, until his statements and actions in this matter are closely scrutinised.

In filing the suit, Dr Shaheed’s lawyer, Dr Jameel said that one of the purposes of the suit was to set some legal precedents in the country. Although one fears that Dr Shaheed’s lawsuit could limit the scope for freedom of expression, it can, on the contrary, expand the boundaries of free expression in the country. No one will argue that it is time that the judiciary set certain standards for litigation in defamation.

Dr Jameel is amply qualified to aim at those high standards which should make his PhD supervisors at the University of London very happy indeed.

In fact, Dr Shaheed’s handling of the case has already been different from the older methods of dealing with defamation. The first of these is that he voluntarily chose the civil lawsuit over criminal proceedings. He could have easily chosen criminal litigation, but to the surprise and delight of many journalists, chose to seek civil remedies.

The second is that he chose not to take any of the journalists or media outlets to court on the matter. A number of media platforms repeated or disseminated the defamatory allegations. This distinction that Dr Shaheed is making has significant implications for strengthening press freedom in the country, for a firm legal basis for this distinction is likely to be established in the court.

And the third is that he speaks about setting legal precedents. So far in the Maldives, there is no distinction made between alleged defamation of public figures and private citizens, between compensatory and punitive damages, and between contemptuous damages and aggravated damages. Neither has the usual defences for defamation, such as fair comment and public interest, been cited or contested in court. Nor have mitigating or aggravating circumstances been discussed. At least some, if not all, of these concepts are likely to be discussed in a defamation suit.

In terms of setting legal precedents, a lot will depend on how Dr Jameel lays out the arguments. One hopes that the argumentation will provide for the adoption of modern standards of defamation proceedings. If that is indeed the case, by the time the lawsuit ends, journalists might feel more secure about reporting on matters of public interest, without reckless disregard for the truth.

One also hopes that Dr Jameel’s argumentation will introduce to the Maldivian judiciary new concepts in the domain of freedom of expression and set a very high bar on defamation, through a discussion of legitimate defences against defamation, the concept of malice and reckless disregard, of libel per se and aggravated damages.

At the least, we should hear how the Foreign Minister responds to the call by Frank La Rue that state officials do not pursue any defamation lawsuits. What is the international norm on this? Let us hear this in the Court.

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: 10TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

CSID Report

How to Improve Relations with the Muslim World - Challenges and Promises Ahead


CSID's 10th Annual ConferenceTuesday, May 5, 2009Sheraton Crystal City Hotel
Conference Report


The election of President Barack Hussein Obama on November 4, 2008, meant perhaps more for the rest of the world than it did for the United States. It signified a turn away from the divisive politics of the past administration and the start of a new era of American politics grounded in the principles of justice, freedom, and good governance, both in domestic as well as foreign affairs. It is with the hope of the positive changes this new administration will bring in terms of its relationship with the governments and people of the Muslim World that the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) held its 10th Annual Conference in the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, centered on the very timely topic of "How to Improve Relations with the Muslim World: Challenges and Promises Ahead."

To facilitate the introduction and pursuant discussion on this complex topic, the conference was divided into four separate panels, with special lunch and banquet dinner sessions.

The first session of the conference event addressed the issue of "Developing Democracy in the Muslim World." The first speaker on this panel was Ms. Geneive Abdo, a foreign policy analyst at the Century Foundation, whose research focuses on contemporary Iran and political Islam. Her presentation discussed the importance of United States engagement with the Islamic movements of the Middle East, particularly to ease tensions between the United States and Iran. While "policy makers focus on the result, rather than on the process" of integration and open dialogue, she said that it is "important to engage not only Iran, but Islamic political movements" within Iran, and indeed around the Arab World, as they have widespread constituencies and are the most popular political parties in the Middle East.

Ms. Cecile Coronato, a legislative assistant with the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) focused on Iranian civil society [paper] and the encouraging signs that point to promising democratic reforms in the future. "Iran's well-educated, young, vibrant population has the potential to encourage democracy," said Ms. Coronato as she discussed the vibrant, progressive, yet often overlooked civil society thriving within Iran. "In a world where security interests often trump respect for human rights, the US should make sure it does not forget the Iranian people in order to improve relations with the Iranian government," which is something the Obama Administration ought to keep in mind as it moves forward in improving relations with the Islamic Republic.

Dr. Sudha Ratan,Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Augusta State University in Georgia presentation was titled "Integrating Women into Democratic Governance: A comparison of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India." [paper] In Pakistan and Afghanistan, she said, the governments have "taken a series of measures to reserve seats for women in elections, which has proven to be quite effective" in increasing the visibility of women in politics; despite these efforts, however, the women, once in office, often find themselves "unable to develop an effective strategy" to carry out their agendas. In Pakistan, women are in a bit of a better position due to the strong civil society movement, although the tensions between the various interpretations of Islam and the role of women in politics has become an increasing problem for these women to handle. In India, there is a large number of women in government at the local level, as opposed to the realities of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has been supported by Muslim reform movements and links to the Gulf States.

In the second session, titled "Prospects for Peace in the Middle East," focused on the 62-year long Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Each of the speakers on this panel will offer their own unique perspectives on the present state of affairs and their hopes for a just resolution. Dr. Halim Rane,Deputy Director of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit and lecturer in the National Centre of Excellent in Islamic Studies in Australia, gave his presentation on "Trading Rockets for Resolutions: Restructuring Palestinian Resistance in the Context of International Legal and Political Dynamics." [paper] Dr. Rane insisted that a just resolution of this conflict is central to improving relations between the United States and the Muslim World, as "the Palestinian cause is popularly seen as synonymous with an Islamic religious cause" Indeed, he said, "the peace process is in need of a framework, guidelines, and basic standards," but he remains highly optimistic for a just peace in the Middle East.

Dr. Mohamed Nimer, Assistant Professor at the School of International Service at American University address was titled "Hamas, Likud, and the Obama Quet for Peace in the Middle East," [paper] and focused primarily on the impact of the prominent political parties within Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, namely Likud and Hamas, respectively. He said that "the problem is not that there is an entity called Israel, the problem is that the Palestinian state is not existent. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians need to change their narrative. Once peace takes hold, people will be conditioned by it and you will no longer have people who have spent their entire existence in a state of conflict."

Dr. Nathan Funk, assistant Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Waterloo in Canada spoke on "Peacemaking between America and the Muslim World: Beginning a New Chapter in U.S.-Islamic Relations?" [paper] His presentation focused on the necessary steps the new Obama Administration ought to embrace in mending the strained relations between the United States and the Muslim World. He said that "what has happened in the past cannot be changed, but the overall meaning of those events is subject to change," and added that "finding the political courage for this kind of thing is not easy as there is an overwhelming temptation and tendency to preserve political capital," but that it is not only possible, as the new President himself as exemplified, but is imperative, and must continue to sculpt future policies.

The luncheon and roundtable session centered around a discussion on the future prospects on the coexistence of Islam and Democracy in the Muslim World. The first speaker was Dr. John L. Esposito,University Professor and Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. Dr. Esposito noted that "what we see is that in many parts of the world the majority of Muslims want what we call 'democratization.' But many of them want a notion of modernization that includes religious values, in one way or another, that includes shari'ah as they see it, shari'ah that limits government and guarantees the moral values of society", which he adds is not so different than what most Americans want in their government. "The challenge facing us," he said "is to re-imagine what it is to talk about democracy, democracy in the Muslim world, the role that governments in and outside the Muslim world need to play. We need a new paradigm."

Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Maldives, was the second luncheon speaker. "There are those who reject outright any notion of compatibility between Islam and Democracy, and many of them see a colossal confrontation between the two," [paper] says Dr. Shaheed, which many may see as discouraging in the struggle for democratization in the Muslim World. While "democracy has not yet become entrenched" in the Arab World, there is cause for hope,as seen in the recent democratic transition in the Republic of Maldives, which was facilitated both by strong foreign actors as well as "unrelenting domestic, internal pressure." The challenge for the rest of the Muslim World, primarily the Arab World, is the need to develop a "change in mentality" so that a transition away from autocratic regimes to democratic governments is made possible and permanent.

The topic of the third panel discussion was "The Role of Religion in Developing Democracy." The first speaker on this topic was Dr. Laith Kubba, Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa Program at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). His presentation was titled "Is Islam Relevant to Democracy Building in Muslim Countries," gave the example of the Turkish budding democracy and its failure of excluding Islam from the process. "The reality is that Islam strongly influenced the lives of nearly 100 nations for more than one thousand years and it is an inseparable component of their cultural identity;" thus, the debate now, within Turkey is "no longer about whether or not Islam should be addressed in public life but it is about what form of Islam" ought to be incorporated and why. "Whatever we do has to be culturally sensitive."

Mr. Alejandro J. Beutel, a Junior Fellow at the Minaret of Freedom Institute, and Dr. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmed, the President and Director of the Minaret of Freedom Institute, presented a joint paper on "Religious or Policy Justification for Violence: a Quantitative Content Analysis of Osama bin Laden's Statements." [paper] Mr. Beutel said that "in the same vein that Osama bin Laden plays on the policy issue to manipulate Muslims to join his cause Western nations must address these grievances with substantive action so that they do not provide proof for those who are skeptical about their rhetoric." He highlighted interesting discoveries that came out in the in-depth studies of bin Laden's public speeches and written documents, in which he switches around in using religious and political justifications for violence depending on his target audience.

Ms. Amina Rasul-Bernardo, Lead Convenor of the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy and Managing Trustee of the Magbassa Kita Foundation Inc, whose talk was titled "The Role of Religion in Peacemaking: The Philippines 'Ulama." [paper] "Tensions where religion is invoked... arise not simply between adherence of difference between practices and beliefs, but also between secular and religious groups," which has added to the challenges not only within her native Philippines, but in conflicts around the world. Ms. Rasul-Bernardo notes that "the changes in geo-politics in the Philippines have not only contributed to the conflict, but have put liberties at risk." In seeking a peaceful resolution to the domestic conflicts of the Philippines between the majority Catholic and minority Muslim populations, the religious leaders, both Catholic and Muslim, have been "doing everything they can to resolve the ethnic conflict," as they are seen as the most trustworthy and credible people by the population at large.

Dr. Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, closed this segment of the conference with his presentation titled "Islamist Movements in the Electoral Process in the Arab World." In response to the concerns of Western democracies of the radicalization of some Islamic political parties in the Muslim World, Dr. Brown points out that "it is often the case that behavior produces ideology - if you take a look at the range of political behavior by islamic political actors, you find enormous variation." He added that "the political context in which [political parties] operate is a much better indicator of how they behave than their ideology is." Thus, he insisted that Islam is not the problem; rather, the dire situations in which these political parties operate have unfortunately driven them to extremes. He concluded with the position that "the political party that is allowed to form and is given a long leach will integrate itself as a viable political actor."

Dr. Osama Kadi,the founder and president of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS), spoke on "Improving Relations between the U.S. and the Muslim World." [paper] His presentation was titled "Improving American-Syrian Relations: Toward a Strategic Plan," which begins by pointing out that, in recent history, "the US State department tailored its relationship with Syria based on its political interests and ignored all other aspects of the potential relationships." After highlighting a countless number of successful joint projects between the European Union and the Syrian Arab Republic in recent years, in the areas of business, gas, energy, banking, and institutional and infrastructural modernization, Dr. Kadi expressed his hope that "the United States will purse principled and sustained with all the nations in the region, and that will include Iran and Syria," for the mutual benefit of both sides.

Mrs. Sara Khorshid, Egyptian journalist and managing editor of IslamOnline.net's "Politics in Depth" section, talked about "The U.S. Favoring of Liberal Opposition, Pro-Good Governance Forces in the Muslim World: Assessment of the Past and Recommendations for the Future." [paper] Mrs. Khorshid's position on the flagrant U.S. support and backing for liberal individuals and forces in Egypt is that it is counter-productive to the push for democracy as Liberal Egyptians are the least popular and favorable in the country. She addresses not only the "pro-democracy policies of the US government, but also pro-liberalism attitudes and positions in US media and culture." She posits that it is because of the "fear of Islamists" and the American definition of democracy that excludes other variations, that the United States continues to support these unpopular forces.

Mr. Atef Saadawi, managing editor of the Democracy Review Quartely, a publication of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, spoke about "Promoting Democracy in the Arab World: New Ideas for U.S. Policy." [paper] Mr. Saadawi begins by pointing out that "within the Arab world, there are three groups of main political actors: current governing regimes, secular parties both liberal and leftist, and Islamist parties," and the successful implementation of democracy will depend on the integration and balance between these three groups. If the United States is to earnestly press for democracy, it must allow for a natural balance to take place between these three forces; it must not impose any particular outcome out of its own preferences. Mr. Saadawi ends with a reminder to the new Administration to "recognize that military force is the least effective way to promote democratic change abroad. Military force should never be presented as an effort to promote democracy abroad."

Dr. Anwar Haddam,President and co-founder of the Movement for Liberty and Social Justice (MLJS) in Algeria, presented a paper titled "The Obama Administration: Engaging the Muslim World with a New Mindset; Challenges and Opportunities." [paper] Dr. Haddam began with what he called "a historical statement" made by President Obama in his inaugural address: "To the Muslim World, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Dr. Haddam continued to comment that "Islam is the major element of the Muslim identity. Obama's inauguration speech was the first time a president recognized that." He noted that President Obama's inaugural address was critical in that it openly admitted to the realities that "there has been erosion of trust between the Muslim and Western worlds, particularly in the last seven years," but insisted that true positive change must come from internal pressure in Washington.

At the final session, the Hesham Reda Memorial Lecture and Annual Banquet Dinner, centered around the topic of "Building Bridges of Understanding between the U.S. and the Muslim World." Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison opened the banquet dinner with his speech about the importance of building and maintaining these bridges by recognizing commonalities. "We live in a world that is so incredibly inter-connected, said the Congressman. "As Americans, of whatever faith, we have to be the kind of people who seek the new relationship..." and not shun away from that which is perceived as foreign or different. He continued to say that "bridging the gap is not us building bridges over here; it's building bridges on both sides," and calls on the entire world community to make the necessary concessions in order to be able to build a future of mutual respect and freedom.

Ms. Madelyn E. Spirnak,Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and overseer of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), the Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) initiative, and the Near East Bureau's Press and Public Diplomacy Office, underlined and reiterated a new era of policy toward the Middle East. [paper] Ms. Spirnak highlighted that President Obama is committed to building bridges with the Muslim world and seeks a new dialogue on the full range of issues we face and that "he speaks of new partnerships on issues of education, healthcare, livelihoods," and more. "Both he and Secretary of State Clinton focus on the fact that the challenges we face are too great to limit our responses to interactions between governments." She reminded everyone that "public diplomacy lies at the heart of the country's smart power," and that "true public diplomacy is about engagement, about listening as much as talking," which is something this Administration is absolutely committed to doing.

Dr. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute began his address by reminding the conference attendees of the significance of the present-day and its role as a turning point in history: "This an important moment to reflect on how we can revise the post-9/11 prism through which Americans look at the Muslim world." He posited that most people see the world through what he called "prisms of pain": "The Arab-Israeli issue remains the prism of pain through which Arabs see America. It is a psychological predisposition to evaluate America primarily through this prism." Standing for democracy and human rights "is one of the strengths of America," says Dr. Telhami, as he expresses his excitement and hope that the current Administration will follow through with its promises.

Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Professor of Political Sociology and a visiting Professor at Harvard University, but better known as a human rights defender and democracy activist in Egypt and across the Arab World highlighted three burdens of Muslim Americans: "There is no escape from the burdens by virtue of being Americans and being Muslims. Your first burden should be to this country. For first duty is to be a good American, a good Muslim American. Always vote." He then reminded everyone to count their blessings "in being part of an open, democratic society," a luxury that most of the world does not enjoy. In relation to the past Administration's restriction of certain rights to Arab and Muslim Americans, he reminded the conference attendees that their "freedom is never secure or enjoyable" if their fellow citizens do not also have it. He ended by saying that "we must use our liberty to secure our liberty for all," and continue to struggle for the successful and permanent transition from authoritarian, oppressive regimes in the Muslim World to great democracies.

A very significant aspect of every CSID annual conference is to present a "Muslim Democrat of the Year" award to a very honorable and deserving recipient. This year's recipient was Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Maldives, for his great sacrifice and instrumental role in the long and difficult struggle to transform his country into a democracy. Dr. Shaheed dedicated the award to everyone in the Maldives, to his family, to his colleagues in the former cabinet who joined him in creating a more democratic Maldives. To the current president for relentlessly challenging autocratic order, and to the outgoing president for having the good grace to step down after he lost the election.

After a long day of inspiring and engaging presentations and pursuant discussions on the various topics presented, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy celebrated the successful completion of its 10th Annual Conference. As many notable attendees and panelists had noted throughout the event, the fact that CSID was able to continue its important work relentlessly for the past ten years is an accomplishment in and of itself. There have certainly been very difficult times endured in the past ten years, but it is with the hopes that the new Obama Administration brings, in addition to the renewed commitment of politicians, scholars, and ordinary citizens from around the world, that CSID looks to the future and continues in its pursuit for justice, respect, and equality for all people.

This report was written by Mariem R. Masmoudi, currently a CSID intern and a student in International Politics, at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

J-Curve and the Maldives: From the Horse's Mouth

The article below was published on The New ForeignPolicy.com
http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/04/call_as_go_the_maldives_so_goes_the_world


Call: As go the Maldives, so goes the world

Mon, 05/04/2009 - 7:42pm
By Ian Bremmer
Three years ago, I wrote a book called The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall. The J curve is a visual representation of the relationship between a country's "stability" and its "openness." Stability is a measure of a government's ability to weather a crisis. Openness is a measure of the extent to which ideas, information, people, money, goods and services flow freely across a state's borders and within the country itself.
Some states (North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and others) are stable only because they're relatively closed. In these countries, a governing elite works hard to isolate citizens from the outside world -- and, where possible, from one another. Other countries (Canada, Italy, India, Germany, the United States, Japan, Norway and dozens of others) are stable precisely because they're open.
When a country that is stable only because it is closed finally begins to open up, it slides down the left side of the curve toward the dip in the J, a point of maximum instability. You can't move from left (closed) to right (open) along the J without passing through that dip. In the real world, that means that if relatively closed countries like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, or Burma decided to open up a bit by holding genuinely free and fair national elections with full coverage in local media, they would almost certainly reap the whirlwind. That's why the governments of closed states work so hard to keep them closed.
Which brings us, of course, to the Maldive Islands.
The Republic of Maldives is best known as an absurdly beautiful string of pearls adorning the Indian Ocean about 400 miles southwest of Sri Lanka. It's a nation composed of more than a thousand small islands in danger of slipping beneath the waves as global warming raises sea levels.
Last weekend, the country's foreign minister, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, discussed The J Curve during an interview to illustrate why his former political party, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), will plunge the country into chaos while his new party, the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), will help the country avoid this risk. Here's an excerpt of what he said:
"The J-Curve ... speaks of countries which are autocratic and undemocratic and when they democratize, they go through a J-Curve and you go through a little dip. That dip is when things are unstable and things are a bit chaotic but then you eventually improve to become more stable. So we are in an unstable period. The danger is in some countries, they move back towards the left and go straight back to autocracy. So if DRP comes back in we'll go back towards the left of the curve. And we can forget about democracy for the next 30 years because they will tell us that democracy produced a government that didn't work.
I cite this comment for two reasons. First, it's kind of gratifying to have a country's foreign minister like your work -- and help make an argument that you believe in. Second, and more to the point, though I don't entirely share Dr. Shaheed's view that an authoritarian country can't become more open to the rest of the world (so far so good for China), he's making a point that applies awfully well to the risks that the global financial crisis now poses for dozens of countries around the world.
Worsening economic conditions have exacerbated pre-existing political problems in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, Argentina and many other countries. All these states have begun to slide toward the dip in the J curve and the turmoil it represents. And all those who hold political power in these countries must decide how their governments should respond. They can hunker down, build new walls, and favor near-term stability at the expense of investment in longer-term prosperity. Or they can double down on the power of free markets and international trade to expand their economic horizons and continue to engage with other governments in finding solutions to seemingly intractable common problems.
There is nothing inevitable about globalization's progress. There are plenty of political officials around the world, insecure in their positions, with obvious motives to advance populist/nationalist/protectionist arguments at the expense of trade, foreign investment, and immigration. But if a state's leaders and lawmakers turn their backs on the increasingly free exchange of ideas, information, people, money, goods and services, its citizens -- and the global economy -- will only be the poorer for it.