When internal democracy does not prove conclusive enough for the Ukraine, external sponsors in a manner seemingly extolling the virtues of plutocracy, pull their weight and may yet determine which of the Victors, Yuschenko or Yanukovych takes charge. As in parts of the Muslim World, the fear is that geopolitical priorities take precedence over aspirations of the nation's people, fomenting a view that, 'We know what's best for you, you can have freedom (subject to our supervision) and democracy (providing it's to our satisfaction)'.
If the aligning of Yuschenko to America and Yanukovych to Russia was not enough, the eagerness of the European Union and interestingly of Poland in trying to impose their patronage adds further complications. Consequently, while appealing for calm, all the above-mentioned are vehemently trying to ensure their man emerges as the 'Real Victor'.
Larger than France and right on Russia's doorstep, Ukraine lies on a geopolitical fault line between East and West. Wherein lies the temptation to influence an independent population, be it incentives from the West to provide millions towards political training or retaining ties with your biggest trading partner (Russia). An unhealthy sign for future global political stability regardless.
On the same token, gauging the length and breadth of mainstream media coverage devoted to this saga is perhaps indicative of the test that Ukraine presents for emerging democracies. For the poor Ukranian, the country appears to be a divided nation and not just due to the election. Historically, the Eastern "Blue" half has been Orthodox and either of Russian descent or mixed Russian blood. The Western "Orange" half is considered Catholic and more pro-Western. Apart from generating secessionary or autonomy demands, simply applying democracy as a ready-made formula doesn't always beckon prosperity. Bear in mind, nations with significant differences based on ethnic or cultural divides are invariably causes for concern, hence the succint proverb, 'The more things change, the more they stay the same'.
While Ukraine waits for it's Supreme Court to make the next move, a total re-run of the election cannot be ruled out. Several international leaders have been asked to mediate to find some sort of compromise between the two camps, again undermining democracy.
As Muslims throughout the world witness the intricacies of democracy playing havoc in countries that have a lot more in common with the West. One ponders as to where that leaves Muslim countries who are preached democracy with evangelical fervour, yet are far more diverse and complex?
Showing posts with label THE MUSLIM WEEKLY - EDITORIALS 2005. Show all posts
Showing posts with label THE MUSLIM WEEKLY - EDITORIALS 2005. Show all posts
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Sheikh Al-Qaradawi vs. The Zionists
Mayor Livingstone hit the proverbial nail on the head when he stressed in his statement on Tuesday that dialogue is our best option and especially with influential Muslim public opinion makers such as Al-Qaradawi.
Of course, much for their rants about Muslims and violence, the zionists appear eerily against dialogue too (thereby creating a scenario where any change in the status quo must be conducted by the zionists, whether it's the Israeli/palestinian issue or how Muslims and Islam is perceived in the West)
Clearly, any improvement on mutual understanding and consequent harmony between Muslims and Non-Muslims would be detrimental to their interests, further proof that their existence and prominence depends solely on conflict and hate.
It's appropriate that they have tried to malign somebody of the stature of Sheikh Qaradawi as he is just the match for them. It's a pity that the Times and the Tory party bought their lies and pitched themselves in the same bracket as their conniving, deceitful associates.
Of course, much for their rants about Muslims and violence, the zionists appear eerily against dialogue too (thereby creating a scenario where any change in the status quo must be conducted by the zionists, whether it's the Israeli/palestinian issue or how Muslims and Islam is perceived in the West)
Clearly, any improvement on mutual understanding and consequent harmony between Muslims and Non-Muslims would be detrimental to their interests, further proof that their existence and prominence depends solely on conflict and hate.
It's appropriate that they have tried to malign somebody of the stature of Sheikh Qaradawi as he is just the match for them. It's a pity that the Times and the Tory party bought their lies and pitched themselves in the same bracket as their conniving, deceitful associates.
Democracy in the Middle East
Palestine:
On the surface, two-thirds of Palestinians taking part in elections and overcoming the impasse which saw the late Yasser Arafat's influence dwindle to insignificance, promises to herald the dawn of a new era.
What is more important now is not necessarily whether America, Israel or even Britain is encouraged by voter turnout. Indeed, even the slogan that Palestine is now the second democracy in the Middle East after Israel is just merely that: a slogan.
What would change ground reality but unfortunately is not forthcoming is the issue of whether the Palestinians can have a state where the capital is East Jerusalem, where they can settle back to their 1967 borders and resolve the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
The sheer weakness of the Palestinian's bargaining position would ensure progress was modest, no matter how much democracy flourishes or insurance policies are given against suicide bombers.
What many Muslims are gradually realising is that this so-called intractable problem will have to be addressed involving the Muslim world at large.
Let's face it, if Israel is sponsored by the United States then it is only correct and proper for the Palestinians to negotiate their plight under a wider umbrella.
Iraq:
As the Shias unite under the banner 'United Iraqi Alliance' and eagerly await the end of this month, the Sunnis at their most optimistic have mixed feelings.
While the country is on fire and many commentators categorically opining that the Americans are incapable of stemming the violence, some even describing the current scenario as all out war between 150,000 soldiers and their allies (Iraqi police etc.) against over 200,000 'insurgents'. the imposition of nationwide elections looks and feels desperate.
Iyad Allawi's tone has changed over the months from aggression to virtual resignation in the wake of scores of police and 'special commandos' perishing under attack. However, foreseeing the elections as a panacea only further confuses and exacerbates the situation rather than helping it.
On the surface, two-thirds of Palestinians taking part in elections and overcoming the impasse which saw the late Yasser Arafat's influence dwindle to insignificance, promises to herald the dawn of a new era.
What is more important now is not necessarily whether America, Israel or even Britain is encouraged by voter turnout. Indeed, even the slogan that Palestine is now the second democracy in the Middle East after Israel is just merely that: a slogan.
What would change ground reality but unfortunately is not forthcoming is the issue of whether the Palestinians can have a state where the capital is East Jerusalem, where they can settle back to their 1967 borders and resolve the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
The sheer weakness of the Palestinian's bargaining position would ensure progress was modest, no matter how much democracy flourishes or insurance policies are given against suicide bombers.
What many Muslims are gradually realising is that this so-called intractable problem will have to be addressed involving the Muslim world at large.
Let's face it, if Israel is sponsored by the United States then it is only correct and proper for the Palestinians to negotiate their plight under a wider umbrella.
Iraq:
As the Shias unite under the banner 'United Iraqi Alliance' and eagerly await the end of this month, the Sunnis at their most optimistic have mixed feelings.
While the country is on fire and many commentators categorically opining that the Americans are incapable of stemming the violence, some even describing the current scenario as all out war between 150,000 soldiers and their allies (Iraqi police etc.) against over 200,000 'insurgents'. the imposition of nationwide elections looks and feels desperate.
Iyad Allawi's tone has changed over the months from aggression to virtual resignation in the wake of scores of police and 'special commandos' perishing under attack. However, foreseeing the elections as a panacea only further confuses and exacerbates the situation rather than helping it.
SADDAM and WMD-Twist or Spin?
The further the Conflict in Iraq intensifies, the lamer the reasoning for going to War in the first place appears to look. Although the wording and reasoning have changed with the circumstances, with every new report that emerges about failure to locate WMD, the more evil Saddam Hussein's 'intentions to acquire' appear to be.
The Iraq Survey Group's report on Wednesday, suggested Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed, not advanced since the 1991 Gulf War. Nevertheless, Mr Straw thought the report proves that "in terms of his intention", Saddam was an "even starker" threat than thought. For Mr Blair, the report confirmed his fears, not that WMD had been found but the report's suggestion that Saddam Hussein intended to resume production of banned weapons when he could.
Where sanctions and no fly zones in the 1990's had suffocated Saddam's ability to even service his rusting tanks, his alleged links to Al-Qaida forcefully put in the run-up to the war were only tamely withdrawn by the very people who made them in the first place viz. Donald Rumsfield.
Can the electorate and their representatives, many of whom faithfully and unquestionably accepted the decision to go to war, also tolerate the current spin that Mr. Hussein had future intentions to obtain WMD even though we had already effectively made it impossible for him to do so!
The quote of the week is reserved for the Iraqi Interim Government's deputy Prime Minister Dr. Saleh who considered that, "Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction."
The Iraq Survey Group's report on Wednesday, suggested Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed, not advanced since the 1991 Gulf War. Nevertheless, Mr Straw thought the report proves that "in terms of his intention", Saddam was an "even starker" threat than thought. For Mr Blair, the report confirmed his fears, not that WMD had been found but the report's suggestion that Saddam Hussein intended to resume production of banned weapons when he could.
Where sanctions and no fly zones in the 1990's had suffocated Saddam's ability to even service his rusting tanks, his alleged links to Al-Qaida forcefully put in the run-up to the war were only tamely withdrawn by the very people who made them in the first place viz. Donald Rumsfield.
Can the electorate and their representatives, many of whom faithfully and unquestionably accepted the decision to go to war, also tolerate the current spin that Mr. Hussein had future intentions to obtain WMD even though we had already effectively made it impossible for him to do so!
The quote of the week is reserved for the Iraqi Interim Government's deputy Prime Minister Dr. Saleh who considered that, "Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
