Islam and the Failure of Multiculturalism

by Kaneez Fatima

A wave of European leaders have recently made headlines with their statements regarding the failure of multiculturalism in its integration of minorities into European culture, making Islam and Muslims the target of their criticisms. David Cameron recently joined the long list of such leaders.

Throughout our contemporary history, multiculturalism has been a fiercely debated topic as globalization takes over. Multiculturalism was first coined in Canada in the 70′s to integrate marginalized aboriginals, appease independence-seeking Francophones and give validation to cultural minorities that demanded formal recognition from the government. The policies of multiculturalism thus spread far and wide beyond Canada’s borders to the US and much of Europe. A doctrine composed for a society that embraces tolerance seemed to become the identity, and perhaps the selling point for most of these nations. What must be noted, however, is that each nation devised its own unique approach to multiculturalism based on the political and social realities on the ground.

At first glance, multiculturalism was coined to maintain cultural differences within a country, as opposed to the repression and denial of cultural differences from the mainstream, dominant culture, while at the same time awarding these minorities their full rights of citizenship. Such an approach would thus go a long way in preserving cultural identities, while giving these groups an added incentive to identify with the larger population of the country based on the awarded citizenship.

However, while critically examining the doctrine of multiculturalism, it is impossible to ignore that it has been used as a tool to deal with divergence in culture among the population. Cultural and ethnic differences are categorized into groups through which differences are managed, and relationships are constructed between these groups and the larger society. These ethnic minorities are expected to conform with the values and principles of the dominant group or culture, while practicing their differences in the areas allotted to them. The specifications of the limits and boundaries within which these differences are accepted and tolerated are usually determined by the dominant group. Also, this categorization will be a major factor in deciding the nature of interactions these groups will have with the dominant one, as well as the forging of any sort of relationship.

Cultural differences are systematically categorized and put into various identifiable groups based on the nature of cultural divergence, and the extent to which these differences are allowed to manifest in societies are thereafter controlled. This method of dividing populations into distinct groups based on cultural diversity with the goal of “management of differences” has been vigorously criticized as a contemporary form of blatant racism.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in various countries that have adopted multiculturalism, cultural differences are celebrated so long as they play a positive role in the larger society. Yet cultural differences are met with more than just hostility when they challenge the majority’s way of life. Any such obstacle is considered as being in defiance of the multicultural ideology.

As the population of Muslims has grown significantly over the years in the West, it is intriguing that the adherents of Islam are categorized as a distinct, cultural group, whilst no other religion is treated as such. Even though Muslims come from an array of different cultural and social backgrounds, the West continually recognizes them as one ethnic, social and cultural entity.

Islam as a religion has taken a few hits over the years, particularly with the launch of the war on terror, with every labeled terrorist turning out to be a Muslim. The portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the media and the hostility emanating from political leaders, whether directly or indirectly, has continued to shape the perceptions of non-Muslims by large, who then place all Muslims in the same category based on their skewed understanding. Muslims have generally come to be recognized as part of a distinct cultural group on their own, one that most consider alien and even hostile to Western values.

For most, it is easier to conceptualize Muslims as being part of one cultural and ethnic entity as opposed to trying to understand the diverse cultures and ethnicities that follow the religion of Islam. For governments, it is easier to exert that control and maintain diverging practices if Muslims are conceptualized as a single group.

Islam does prescribe certain communal rites and practices such as fasting, congregational prayers, Eid, etc. which all serve to unite Muslims from all cultural backgrounds in certain ways. At times, it is easier and even advantageous to be categorized as one group, for it gives Muslims a far better representation in society, alongside greater political and social influence in matters that affect their way of life. It is understandable that Muslims in the West by large may even want to maintain the status-quo due to these factors, amongst others.

Islam however, is a religion that has withstood the test of time, cultures and ethnicities. It has spread from the Arab world to both the East and the West – with Indonesia now boasting the largest Muslim population in the world. What the West has failed to recognize too is the fact that although Islam unites its followers in a plethora of ways, communities, societies, and even individuals differ in their approach towards the encompassing issues in matters where “culturally-specific” understanding of Islam (or any other religion for that matter) comes to play. The flexibility Islam that displays in such matters remains unrivaled even today, and perhaps may be one of the factors that have ensured the religion’s appeal beyond race, culture, language and background.

Multiculturalism has failed. As an ideology which was supposed to celebrate ethnic, religious, racial and cultural difference as opposed to exerting control over minorities, multiculturalism has failed indeed. The very goal of this doctrine is one that cannot be sustained in the long run. As subtle as the workings of multiculturalism may be, trying to exert control and limit the expressions of ethnic minorities as a whole will only result in further disenfranchisement of these groups, ultimately causing them to feel disinclined to honor any of their obligations or feel any loyalty to the awarded citizenship.

What has also failed here is the Western approach towards the integration of Muslims in the greater society. Western leaders have failed to understand the diversity of the religion’s followers, and to comprehend the diverging role Islam plays in various situations based on individual and cultural perceptions.

An upheaval is needed in the policies of multiculturalism. But change in the direction of what Cameron, Merkel and Sarkoszy are preaching is not the change these societies need. Their expectation of ethnic minorities conforming with the principles of the West dates back to the era before multiculturalism was introduced and does something other than managing differences – it cracks down on them. Not only does it go against the principles of democracy, but also defies the very values these nations tout to stand for.

(This article also appeared on www.islamicinsights.com)

The question of Pakistani identity

Pakistan needs to strike the right balance between its religious identity and extremism

by Kaneez Fatima

As the world enters 2011 with hopes for peace and stability, Pakistan tops the headlines for all the wrong reasons, as expected perhaps. The government, lauded by the West as Pakistan’s bold step towards democracy, seems to be on the verge of collapse. Infighting is not new to Pakistani politics, we are a nation scarred by the constant upheavals and turmoils brought upon us by our own governments, be they military or democratically elected ones.

Meanwhile, the drones keep coming, the country continues down the road of total economic collapse, the victims of the flood still await relief and hope that the government makes a final decision on how to spend the funds that are accumilating in its bank accounts. And to top it all, the most high profile assassination in three years has been carried out in the first few days of what could have been a glorious year for Pakistan.

The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer has courted controversy from day one. His appointment itself as governor created waves in Punjab, Pakistan’s most powerful province. His “liberal” views, particularly with regards to the blasphemy law repeal in Pakistan were what brought about the tragic end to his life, spurring more controversy in keeping with his style.

His murderer was received by crowds chanting “Allah-o-Akbar” (God is Great) and showered with petals. Nearly three hundred lawyers told a court they were willing to defend the commando free of charge, and Pakistan’s top Urdu newspaper’s headlines screamed, “There should be no funeral for Salman Taseer and no condemnation for his death.”

What Taseer’s death does is bring us back to the debate that has been surrounding Pakistani politics for quite some while: as the grip of religious extremism on the Pakistani population is realised, why does every effort to secularise the country end the way the Punjab governor did?

Religious extremism has become a growing problem for Pakistan, specially with its role in the war on terror (with terror being directly equated to religious extremism). Many point at Gen. Zia ul Haq’s dictatorship for importing the strong religious identity a lot of Pakistanis ascribe themselves with.

But the Islamic identity of Pakistan goes well beyond Zia’s rule. It goes to the basic foundations upon which Pakistan gained independence. It’s founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah fought for a separate homeland for India’s Muslims to save them from the persecution religious minorities stood to face, in his view, in an independent India. Hence, Pakistan came into being as the homeland for Sub-continent’s Muslims. Pakistanis then, as today, did not have to choose between whether they are Muslims first or Pakistanis. For them, they are Pakistanis because they are Muslims. By identifying themselves as such, it is no wonder that the population has been susceptible to religious influences from across the border.

Pakistan has always needed (and even exploited) a firebrand interpretation of Islamic teachings to keep its borders secure and to safeguard its preceived national interests. The Kashmiri issue has always been a religious one for Pakistan, not a nationalist one. It considers Kashmir an intergral part of the country becuase of its Muslim nature. The country has depended on Islamic militias to rebel against the Indian state for cessation. Similarly, the Pakistani intellegence and government (with their Western allies) banked on the Afghans’ religious values and turned a nationalist conflict into full blown jihad (religious war) against the Soviets, with backing from the religiously-empathic Pakistani population extending their support, morally and otherwise.

The very ideologies that have been allowed to infused within the masses under the pretext of national interests have come back to haunt the country. President Pervez Musharaf’s move to wage war on the very elements of society the people had come to identify with did not sit well with the general population.

Here, a lot many may disagree. They will point out the silent liberal majority that yearns for democracy and votes for parties like the PPP and the PML(N) (both of which pride themselves on their liberal approach to governance). But there is no such thing as the silent liberal majority in Pakistan. The illiteracy rate in the country continues to climb, the educated upper class makes up a small percentage that either lives abroad or is in some way connected with the political landscape that continues to drag Pakistan on the path of a failed state. The sofisticated youth that hang out at Pizza Hut and McDonald’s remain disenfranchized from the Pakistani reality, both socially and politically. The masses vote the way they do not becuase of policy or stances, but because Pakistan’s politicals parties have figured out how to rally the information-starved crowds by playing to their emotions.

Governments and political parties have touted their liberal approaches, but at the same time continue to be hesitant to directly and openly call for the separation of religion from the matters of governance. Pakistan’s law remains intertwined with Shariah law, and efforts to reform laws have resulted in escapades like that of the blasphemy law repeal. Yet, without openly declaring so, the movers and shakers of national policy in Pakistan continue to push to secularize the nation.

So as the country graples with religious extremism, is a radical push to secularist policies, as we have witnessed in the past decade or so, the answer to Pakistan’s woes? For a population that identifies itself with Pakistan’s religious nature, scrapping the very elements that people appoint to represent them from that religious character will produce the backlash that we are witnessing today.

Looking back at Pakistan’s history, it comes as no surprise that people are always apprehensive when it comes to trusting their elected representatives. Pakistan cannot do with more of this distrust, and the approach being applied to eradicate religious extremism is doing just that. Instead of tackling the issue of extremism, while preserving its religious identity, the current government, just as the previous establishment of Musharraf’s, continues to wage war on religious ideology itself. Politicians and the elite are running to embrace Western values and philosophy of the separation of the church and state, that the common Pakistani considers contradictory to and in direct conflict with Islamic ethics and teachings.

In a country where the illiterate make up the majority, it is the government’s duty to educate its people and point them in the right direction. In this process the government also needs to strike just the right balance between liberal ideologies and staying true to the country’s Islamic identity. The government needs to apply a contemporary interpretation of religion, and religious rulings and bring Pakistan into the 21st century.

It is going to be a delicate balancing act, with little room for error. But the approach, if successful, could perhaps remove some of the woes of the country, giving it the opportunity to maximise on its potentials.

‘Strategic patience’ & the lost war

by Waqar Rizvi

What we’ve learnt from the US’ 2010 Afghanistan and Pakistan Annual Review is that the US has yet to learn from its missteps.

There’s talk of improvements in Afghanistan since Obama took over in January 2009. At the time, al-Qaeda wasn’t under enough pressure, was ‘eating up territory’, and was planning new attacks, is how the argument goes.

Though the transition policy will reduce US forces, a specific timing is unlikely to be honored. General Petraeus, according to reports, has made it clear that US troops are to remain on the ground indefinitely. He cites ‘strategic patience,’ a phrase coined by war-mongers in Washington. Petraeus, chillingly, has said that the grandchildren of current US troops should be ready to continue the battle.

He should’ve added the grandchildren of private security contractors as well. Or maybe they are too privileged. Time will tell.

Petraeus prefers using private contractors because, according to an ex-commander of the US Special Operations Command, “he wants an organization that reports directly to him… Petraeus can’t execute his strategy without the private sector.”

Pauline Neville-Jones, UK’s minister of state for security and counterterrorism, has admitted that “we have something of a crisis in Afghanistan” partially because of “largely unregulated private sector security companies performing important roles.” The minister went on to advise international forces to work out “the operational rules and roles that they have when they are in the frontline” or “We are in danger of getting up against Geneva Convention problems and failure to observe fundamental rules of war.” Who hired this grannie? Doesn’t she know the Geneva Conventions mean nothing anymore?

US Special Operations Command (SOCOM)’s budget between 2001 and 2009 has grown from $3 to $10 billion. According to a spokesman, combat operations aren’t outsourced: “About the only contractors Special Operations forces might have with them on operations are interpreters.”

Talk of private contractors would never be complete without talk of Blackwater, or Xe, as it’s now known. One private contractor, clearly not with Blackwater, said: “Whenever people think of contractors now, they think of Blackwater. Well, if you hire a cheap plumber, don’t be surprised when the plumbing breaks.” Yes, because cheap plumbers kill 17 innocent Iraqis and walk free. Wonder what good plumbers would do!

In a silly case of nit-picking, even Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number 2, makes an appearance in the ‘things going well’ column. He used to put out a new statement ‘every other week or so.’ He’s only put out 4 this year, and that’s meant to show the US is winning. So what should the US do? Continue drone attacks of course, for the alternative is to let al-Qaeda ‘rebuild its capacity’ to threaten the West. Right.

Its been said that Afghanistan was once a centre of terrorism, which has now become a successful exporter, as seen in Sweden recently. One would think it isn’t good for a threat claimed to be decreased, to be able to export itself worldwide, eh?

As if to go squarely against this the report claims that the senior leadership of al-Qaeda in Pak is at its weakest since 9/11, and that the Taliban’s seen its influence decrease significantly over the past year.

The US government says there are, at most, 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, and that the Afghan Taliban are a local movement with little interest in global jihad. Why then maintain 100,000 troops on the ground there?

Matthew Hoh, a former State Department senior representative in Afghanistan who resigned in protest against the war in 2009 says: “Is there acceptance among Americans that we are engaged in a generations-long conflict against a terrorist group that only has 1,000 or 2,000 followers around the world? And that it requires us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and have hundreds of thousands of marines and soldiers deployed worldwide in a perpetual war? It’s absolute madness, but I’m afraid people are buying into it and not challenging it.”

For the US to expect success, it’ll have to put into action development projects that will be of advantage to Afghans & Pakistanis the report says, not just bomb them all, and call them militants when the world cries foul.

The US is set to have a $1.5 trillion deficit next year, and an overall debt of $15 trillion. Justifications for the US to continue spending $125 billion in Afghanistan to build roads, schools, & hospitals, while America’s infrastructure is falling apart don’t stand the test of logic.

Not that all this spending is doing any good anyhow. The Red Cross in a rare emergency press conference painted a gloomy picture of Afghanistan. Reto Stocker, head of the Red Cross in Afghanistan, said: “The proliferation of armed groups threatens the ability of humanitarian organizations to access those in need. Access for the International Committee of the Red Cross has over the last 30 years never been as poor.” This came after, just earlier this month, the ICRC in Geneva warned the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan was likely to deteriorate further in 2011. Great.

Ex-UN envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide says its time to recognize “serious flaws” in the war strategy: “The counterinsurgency strategy does not work in the Afghan context. Instead of a ‘clear-hold-build’ strategy, it has – predictably – become a ‘clear and clear again’ exercise…. More of the same will only bring greater resentment among the population and greater stubbornness in the insurgency. The Taliban will not allow itself to be humiliated into a dialogue.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said recently: “This is the longest war in the history of the United States. I still see no end in sight. I think the President continues to fail to define success. I don’t think he’s ever done that. … My concern is we’re still trying to fight a politically correct war that will continue in perpetuity.”

This is depressing talk, lets get back to gains. The reports talks of gains as “fragile and reversible.” Caroline Adams, director of South Asia Security Studies at the Center for American Progress says this acknowledgment is an ‘important’ admission. This as national intelligence estimates shows grim security-conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as unwillingness on the part of the latter to end militancy. Military commanders, naturally, have denied these charges, saying the info used was outdated and ignores progress made over the past year. Aha, that must be it.

But wait. If the above is true, then why did Maj. Gen. John Campbell, commander of NATO forces in eastern Afghanistan, predict a 15-20% rise in violence in comparison to the same time last year? This, while he admitted this was unusual, as attacks typically decrease during the winter season. In other words, less militants are choosing to cross the border into Pakistan this winter.

On Pakistan, there’s an unrealistic argument that says the country’s unaffected by what happens in Afghanistan, and that the Pakistani people themselves will decide whether they will remain victims to extremism. Unlikely, as a porous border, the Quetta Shura’s move to Karachi and continuing terrorism within proves.

Anatol Lieven, writing in The Nation says “the greatest danger to Pakistan’s stability comes from the prolonged US war, which deepens divisions in Pakistan and further weakens support for its fragile democratic government. And the destabilization of Pakistan has potentially devastating implications for regional security.”

The future will tell how successful Obama will be in transitioning out of Afghanistan, and in leaving behind anything worth calling a government.

The most depressing concession comes courtesy of the German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle who said that his country has “more realistic expectations” for Afghanistan – no longer expecting good governance but the more achievable goal of “good-enough governance.” What a sad thing to say.