Concerned about the uncontrolled spread of COVID-19’s Delta variant across our region, on Aug. 3, I joined a group of parents and doctors at a rally to demand that the Duval County Public School Board mandate masks in schools. This small exercise in democracy was instrumental in forcing the School Board to mandate masks, albeit with a perplexing opt-out clause. Despite the threats of retaliation from Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis, people standing up for their right to protect their loved ones prevailed, rekindling the seemingly dying embers of our flawed democracy.

This was not the first-time ordinary citizens in Duval made their voices count. Ordinary citizens made a difference last year when they banded together to oppose the privatization of our public utility, JEA. Earlier this year, ordinary citizens made a difference once again when they objected to hundreds of millions of tax dollars being directed to the private development of Lot J, without clarity on the payoffs to taxpayers. To his credit, Jaguars owner Shad Khan responded to these concerns by going back to the drawing  board and returning with a proposal that had both greater transparency and better return on investment (ROI) for taxpayers.

The $120 million Jaguars performance center will be 50 percent funded by taxpayers and seems to assuage the fears of many Lot J critics, such as David Miller, owner of Brightway Insurance, who called the new proposal, “transparent, thoughtful and significant.” I was at the June 3 unveiling of this ambitious project. While listening to the impressive presentation put together by the Jaguars, I could not help but reflect on the power of ordinary citizens collectively raising their voices and the responsiveness of businesses that value such voices. Democracy allows diversity of worldviews to play out in the marketplace of ideas, often producing outcomes that are good for businesses and good for the communities. Studies have shown that societies that fully embrace democracy are more stable and therefore provide the optimal environment for businesses and communities to flourish

A new era of corporate social responsibility could be upon us. Perhaps due to the ubiquitous nature of social media or in part due to the persistence of grassroots community organizing, businesses are realizing something that I have been researching and writing for over two decades – a commitment to social responsibility is no impediment to the core corporate goal of value or profit maximization.

Toyota serves as a recent case study. In the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol Hill, that ended 44 consecutive peaceful transitions of Presidential power, spanning over two centuries, Toyota along with many other major corporations pledged to no longer donate to those members of Congress who sowed needless doubts about the democratic process when they voted to not certify the Presidential elections of 2020. A few months later Toyota resumed their contributions. Facing a storm from stakeholders dismayed that the company was funding those who directly or indirectly aided and abetted a frontal assault on democracy in its most perilous hour, Toyota reversed course.

A 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer report found a staggering 86 percent of respondents want corporate CEOs to lead on societal issues. When government actors fail in their fiduciary duties, 68 percent want businesses to engage on social issues, “with the same rigor, thoughtfulness, and energy used to deliver on profits.” Paying attention to the proverbial bottom line of cash flow but ignoring the perils posed by socially irresponsible actions, such as promoting the big lie of a stolen election, is no longer a sustainable business practice.

Freedom House, America’s oldest organization devoted to the support of democracy reports that, “In every region of the world, democracy is under attack by populist leaders and groups that reject pluralism and demand unchecked power to advance the particular interests of their supporters, usually at the expense of minorities and other perceived foes.” Jan. 6 was the most vivid example here at home about the fragility of our democracy.

Amid the worry about where we go next, I find hope in the small steps our Duval community. Witnessing the successes of a small group of committed citizens, even against strong headwinds, restores hope that democracy will remain the most effective form of governance, so long as people are resolved to making their voices heard and businesses commit themselves to listening.

Parvez Ahmed, Ph.D., is Professor of Finance and Director of Diversity and Inclusion at UNF’s Coggin College of Business

President Trump’s contention that members of the so called “The Squad”, who are all women of color, with three of them born in the US and the fourth a naturalized citizen, should go back to where they came from is nothing new in the history of America’s racist past. People perceived as being different from the dominant political majority in this country – white, heterosexual and male, have heard such epithet hurled at them many times. What is new and unprecedented is that such language came from the White House, the premier seat of American power and the face of America to the world.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission telling anyone to go back to where they came from is illegal. In other words, if any employer said this to their employee they could be fined and sued. If an employee said it to another they could be fired. But the President of the US said and defended it. In the House, 187 of his fellow Republicans failed to muster the courage to condemn their leader, further deepening America’s racial divides. American racism has moved from the shadows, where it was relegated to post-1960s to back in the open. What a stunning reversal of history.

After Trump’s racist tweets much of punditry focused on the brilliance of Trump’s strategy to use race as reelection tool. But this is not 2016. What worked earlier is unlikely to work again. The 2018 elections were proof that despite Trump’s attempt to play up the fear of migrant “caravans” about to invade us across the southern border, Americans overwhelming choose his opposition by record margins. A new USA Today/ Ipsos poll taken after the Trump tweets show that by a 65 to 18 margin Americans agree that Trump’s tweets were indeed racist. By a margin of 59 to 30 they agree that those tweets were un-American and by a margin of 68-20 they agree they were offensive. Even Republicans by a margin of 45 to 34 agree that Trump’s tweets were racist.

We have reached an important crossroads in our liberal democracy. Our Pledge of Allegiance “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” rings hollow when the person and the office entrusted to uphold it subverts it in the most ugliest of manner. The vision of America as an immigrant nation is being challenged in ways not seen since the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. American democracy is in serious trouble. And only we can fix it.

Massive civic education programs that inspire the younger generation to discard cynicism and choose engagement will be a good start. A populist push for making voting more accessible should be a priority. Marrying direct action resistance with thoughtful engagement is a must. Reconciliation and resistance must not represent polar choices. But rather we must demonstrate a new paradigm for intersectionality. Resistance to a Trump administration must be married with an effective strategy of reconciliation with Trump voters. America remains the Promised Land even with a dangerous demagogue at its helm. We must still believe that the moral arc of the universe will bend towards justice. The road ahead got a lot tougher. But it is not an unfamiliar road. We have been on that road many times and each time we overcame often at a significant cost. Why should this time be different?

From #MeToo to #BlackLivesMatter to #NoMuslimBan to #CloseTheCamps, ordinary Americans are mobilized to organize and resist. No more standing idly by as powerful men harass women. No more looking the other way when black boys are gunned down by police officers. No more silence when children are caged and tortured in our name and with our tax dollars. It is time that each one of us take stock and ask what it means to be an American or more importantly who counts as being American. If we cannot disagree without undermining each other’s Americanness, then America as an idea may already be lost.

Americans rarely, if ever, agree on anything. But a recent Quinnipiac survey showed that 97 percent support universal background checks for gun ownership. And yet the U.S. Congress remains paralyzed by inaction. The same Quinnipiac survey showed that nearly 7 in 10 Americans want a nationwide ban on assault weapons, including 43 percent of Republicans. And yet the Republican-controlled Florida legislature, along party lines, refused to debate the banning of assault weapons, like AR-15s, the weapon of choice for many mass shooters, including the Parkland shooter who killed 14 high-school students and three adults.

During a meeting with victims of mass shootings, President Donald Trump voiced support for arming teachers saying, “It could very well solve your problem.” A 2013 survey showed only 38 percent favor allowing teachers and school officials to be armed, with 7 in 10 teachers opposing such measures.

Allowing teachers to carry guns, as the Florida legislature recently authorized, will not solve the problem of mass shooting. Mother Jones analyzed 97 mass shootings. In all cases, the shooter was neutralized in one of three ways: the shooter killed himself, the shooter was killed by law enforcement or the shooter was captured by police. How many times did the good guy armed with a gun stop the bad guy? Zero.

School shootings are a uniquely American problem. It’s the sort of exceptionalism that ought to spur us to urgent and comprehensive action. According to the Washington Post, since 2000, there have been 188 shootings at schools and universities, with a death toll of more than 200 students; another 200 were injured.

The Academy for Critical Incident Analysis collected data on school violence worldwide between 2000 and 2010, and recorded 57 incidents in 36 countries.

Half of the school shootings worldwide during that period were in America. The 35 remaining countries combined contributed to the other half. The stats become even more glaring when you consider the fact that the U.S. population is just a bit more than 300 million people-the rest of the 35 countries on that list are home to 3.8 billion people.

Unless we accept the premise that Americans are exceptionally violent people, what explains our exceptionalism in gun violence? Gun homicide rates in the U.S. are 29.7 per million people, which is more than the next five developed countries combined! Fetish with the Second Amendment, in my view, is at the root of gun violence rates in America. The idea that the proponents of the Second Amendment envisioned a society where guns outnumber people, and where any reasonable limit on gun ownership is viewed as an assault on liberty, is anathema to common sense.

The Declaration of Independence, which preceded the Bill of Rights by more than a decade, outlined that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are “unalienable rights.” The Second Amendment remains the only clause of the Bill of Rights that has the possibility of invalidating the first of our unalienable rights-life. For most of our history, the Second Amendment was viewed as authorizing gun ownership for the purposes of a “well-regulated militia,” not a license to own the types of guns that have little to do with self-defense or hunting. It was not until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, interpreted the Second Amendment to favor an individual right to gun ownership. And yet even the Heller decision did not curtail the possibility of reasonable regulations over gun ownership.

In a town hall meeting on CNN, Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio (with whom I disagree on most issues, including gun regulations) raised a critical point. Wanting to get assault rifles, or semi-automatics, off the streets fails to take into account that the definition of this class of weapons is vague and arbitrary. Congress can and should list different types of weapons to ban, even though some of them can be circumvented, just as with any other form of law-making. Be reminded that currently 61 percent of Americans favor banning the AR-15, the weapon of chosen for many of the mass shootings.

I am in rare agreement with conservative columnist Bret Stephens who, in a 2017 op-ed, asserted that tinkering at the margins of gun regulations will not end our national nightmare of mass shootings and exceptionally high rates of gun-related deaths.

There are two recourses-both political. First, elect representatives at state and federal levels who will have the courage to regulate guns. Second-the long-term fix-is to repeal the Second Amendment, which in a post-Heller world, appears to be a death wish inflicted upon our children. For gun-lovers and hunting enthusiasts, these changes will not mean that they cannot lawfully enjoy responsible ownership of guns. Serbia managed to come in second to the U.S. in the number of guns per capita, but it has far fewer gun-related deaths. This is partly because, without the constitutional protection of gun ownership, guns can be more easily regulated. Gun regulation is a feature, not a bug, in many other advanced democracies. Nowhere has it led to outbreaks of tyranny, as feared by those who fetishize the Second Amendment. To the contrary, a well-regulated gun regimen made societies safer and, with that greater safety, people had more opportunities to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Terrorists who act in the name of Islam, have misappropriated many legitimate and peaceful actions of Islam.

The latest kerfuffle is over the New York terrorist saying “Allahu Akbar” soon after he killed eight and wounded 11, running them over with his rented truck.

The phrase “Allahu Akbar” is not found in Islam’s holy book, the Quran. But it is commonly used in many aspects of religious and secular life.

Arab Christians also use the phrase in social settings, similar to its usage by Muslims. Arab Orthodox Christians even say “Allahu Akbar” in their churches.

So what does “Allahu Akbar” mean? Literally it means God is Great, but it implies that God is greater than anything, greater than any of our challenges, aspirations and allegiances. It is a way to remember and praise God, an exercise hardly unique to Islam.

After the New York truck attack, right-wing media unfairly pounced on CNN’s Jake Tapper for saying that “Allahu Akbar” can be used under the “most beautiful circumstances,” which is indeed correct. Missing in the Tapper criticism is the fact that he also noted “Allahu Akbar” is “too often” used by terrorists.

Those committing terrorism in the name of Islam are part of a messianic cult who twist sacred texts to comport to their parochial view of religious supremacy and eschatology. The problem is hardly unique to Islam, although popular imaginations conflate fanatical misappropriation of sacred religious ideas as a particularly “Islamic” problem.

Muslims say “Allahu Akbar” many times in their daily prayers. The phrase is also used in mundane circumstances, from cheering for a favorite team after every success to whispering it into the ears of a newly born child.

An average Muslim will say “Allahu Akbar” well over 20 times a day, which translates to over 20 billion “God is Great” a day! So why is its misappropriation by terrorists normative of Islam but the billions of peaceful expressions not?

Islamic exceptionalism is pushed by both terrorists and Islamophobes.

Those who commit terror in the name of Islam want to present themselves as warriors in a cosmic battle between right and wrong.

Islamophobes suggest that militant interpretations of Islam are the norm and not the exception in a faith practiced by over 1.6 billion worldwide.

Often such cues comes from the top. President Donald Trump never wastes an opportunity to fan the flames of divisiveness. After a white man in Las Vegas killed 58 people and injured over 500, the president and his supporters decried any attempt at gun regulations, saying it was too soon to act after a tragedy.

But after New York, they wasted little time arguing against a diversity visa program that the New York killer used to gain entry. The Las Vegas killer was not called an “animal,” while the New York killer was.

Liberals have their own culpabilities. Ayan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher are the leading edge of such bigotry.

Hirsi Ali once said that anyone who says “Insha Allah” (God-willing), another common phrase among Muslims, ought to be treated as a “red-flag.”

Maher noted that he never heard a Christian say “Merry Christmas” before detonating a bomb. Religion reporter, Sarah Harvard pointed out that the Christian equivalent for “Allahu Akbar” is not “Merry Christmas” but “Deus Vult” a Latin phrase that means “God wills it” and was used by Pope Urban II at the start of the first Crusade.

Today “Deus Vult” is a common hashtag among the far-right and has been used in several recent acts of violence.

Muslims will continue saying Allahu Akbar daily. Neither the terrorists nor Islamophobes are going to intimidate Muslims from peacefully expressing their religious identity and upholding their deeply cherished religious culture. We can use tragedy to drive deeper wedges or heal exacerbating wounds. That choice remains ours.

A few months ago, I asked a former state legislator, why he failed to cite far-right terrorism as a national security challenge during his panel discussion regarding immigration and refugees. He asked me to cite one evidence of far-right terrorism in America. Oklahoma City. That’s just one, he claimed. What about Charleston? He insisted that in America the norm was “Islamic terrorism.” He is not alone with such blind spots.

Mayor Lenny Curry was among a handful of city mayors in full throated support of President Trump’s executive order banning refugees and travelers from several Muslim-majority countries. Our local congressional representatives, John Rutherford and Ron DeSantis, also gave unquestioned support to this order. Partisan support for such bans notwithstanding, refugees nor citizens from the countries on the banned list have killed anyone in any act of terror in America.

In Charlottesville, a white supremacist used ISIS inspired methods to mow down anti-racist protestors, killing one and injuring 19. The dangers from such homegrown terrorists, who are now emboldened to gather in large numbers holding Nazi flags in one hand while clutching their semi-automatic guns with the other, have generally been downplayed. Charlottesville is the bitter fruit of scapegoating those who are perceived as the “other” while ignoring the dangers of extremism from “our own.”

Through my service on FBI’s local civil rights task force, I learnt that law enforcement agencies are vigilant about the dual threats posed by right-wing militants and self-radicalized Muslims. According to one count, from Sept. 12, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016, violent extremism in the US has claimed 225 lives, 47 percent from far-right extremists and the remaining from radical Islamic extremists. To the detriment of our national security, many of our political leaders, focus exclusively on threats from Muslims, while ignoring the threat from the far-right, euphemistically labeled the Alt-Right.

In February 2016, Newsweek ran a story with the headline, “Right-Wing Extremists are a Bigger Threat to America than ISIS,” which noted, “Multiple confidential sources notified the FBI last year that militia members have been conducting surveillance on Muslim schools, community centers and mosques in nine states for what one informant described as ‘operational purposes.’ …The FBI also learned that right-wing extremists have created bogus law enforcement and diplomatic identifications, not because these radicals want to pretend to be police and ambassadors, but because they believe they hold those positions in a government they have created within the United States.” In Charlottesville, many of the white supremacists were better armed than the police. They came in full battle gear, intending harm. Some reports indicate that a white supremacist shot at the police and yet the police “never moved.” Imagine if they were Blacks or Muslims. Would they have returned home to peacefully sleep in their beds while the rest of the nation lies restlessly awake?

Earlier this year, Arie Perliger, Director of Security Studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell issued a chilling warning, “Despite an uptick in far-right violence …., the White House wants to cut spending for programs that fight non-Muslim domestic terrorism. … This approach is bound to weaken the authorities’ power to monitor far-right groups, undercutting public safety. How many more innocent people like …. have to die before the U.S. government starts taking the threat posed by violent white supremacists more seriously?”

Trump’s statements blaming first “many sides” and then “both sides” for Charlottesville while asserting that there are “very fine people” among those carrying swastika flags, has deepened our racial and religious divides. With that wound still gaping, Trump has gone on to pardon the controversial Sheriff Arpaio, who was convicted of racially profiling Latinos. Not too long ago, Trump’s White House harbored Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, mouthpieces for the Alt-Right. Evangelical leaders who pound their fists at “radical Islamic terrorism” are suddenly at a loss of word after Charlottesville. In addition, a new poll shows that 1 in 5 Trump voters think there were indeed “very fine people” among white supremacists.

What is radicalizing young white men? Look no further than the words and actions of our leaders, many of whom have lost the moral authority to claim such a mantle.

Huffington Post, November 22, 2016

It will be an understatement to say that the world changed in the wee hours of Wednesday, November 9. For some in America, it marked the beginning of a new dawn as the party and ideology they voted for won and won big — not just winning the presidency, but also both houses of Congress and majority of state legislatures. For others, it felt like a descent into darkness. A return to the days of internment, mass deportations and rising hate crimes. However, the presidential elections of 2016 did not divide America. It simply laid bare the festering divisiveness that were never adequately addressed in the first place.

Donald Trump’s speech in Arizona about his signature issue of immigration terrified me. Of particular concern was the perception that anyone who is not in Trump’s image, will be objects of his ire. In a Trump presidency, I have three strikes against me – immigrant, Muslim and brown-skinned.

Trump’s slogan of making America great again sounds fascistic because by any objective measure America is not in serious decline. Yet he has been able to persuade many that people who do not fit the profile of the majority pose an existential threat to America. Noted CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria views Trump as a bullshit artist who is so oblivious about the world that he fails to recognize reality, even when it is obvious. This shows up in his lack of understanding about immigrants and their struggles.

In his Arizona speech, besides the dark picture he painted of immigrants, Trump advocated returning immigration levels to “historical norms,” a term he left undefined. This sounded like dog-whistle for returning America to the pre-1965 days when immigration was mostly limited to white Europeans. His speech gave the impression that America is awash with immigrants when in reality the number of legal immigrants to America has remained at about one million per year over the past two decades. The foreign born population in the U.S. now stands at only 13 percent, posing no threat to the native born majority.

In addition, the number of undocumented immigrants has decreased to around 11 million from its peak of 12.2 million in 2007. Net migration, the difference between people coming and leaving, from Mexico is now close to zero. By reasonable estimates, it is impossible to make the assertion that crime rates from undocumented immigrants are more than those from native born Americans. Trump’s statement that, “Illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion a year” was rated “Mostly False” by the fact-checking website PolitiFact.

Trump also played on the fears of refugees, some of the most vulnerable people on earth. Since 9-11, America has resettled 784,000 refugees, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Only three have been arrested for planning terrorist activity and only one of them for plotting to harm the homeland. As a so called “law and order” candidate Trump is silent about the many deaths resulting from police brutality or from mass shootings by people other than Muslims.

Trump also shows little reverence and understanding for the U.S. Constitution. Trump advocated the closure of mosques, because “some bad things are happening.” He was oblivious of the fact that the First Amendment protects religious liberty of all Americans. In his Arizona speech Trump advocated “extreme vetting” of visitors to the U.S., not just on understandable security grounds but on inexplicable ideological grounds. He called out “radical Islam” as one example requiring “extreme vetting.” How does one spot “radical Islam” at the border? How does a border agent determine which visitor is telling the truth about their true ideological beliefs?

Trump also lacks understanding of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Trump not only wants to reinstitute the torturous practice of water boarding but he also advocates killing family members of suspected terrorists. Trump’s blanket ban on all people from “terrorist countries” is possibly unconstitutional because the definition of “terrorist countries” is vague and if any such definition only singles out Muslim majority countries, it could be viewed by a court as a thinly veiled guise for discriminating against Muslims. When Trump railed against a judge and proclaimed him unfit because of his Mexican heritage, he not only exhibited racial animus but also ignorance about the separation of powers idea in the U.S. Constitution.

There is no telling who Trump will target next. It’s bad enough that as a narcissist, he has Quixotic ideas about his own capabilities. But it is worse that as a demagogue he peddles falsehoods that threaten vulnerable communities. Trump scares me, not because any of his crazy ideas are practically feasible. My real fear is that his brand of bullshitting and nativism will become an indelible part of the American political and social landscape.

I am not alone. Famed journalist Carl Bernstein called Trump a neo-fascist pointing out, “I think the word neo is crucial because it means new and it’s a peculiarly American kind of fascism.” While there are important historical divergences between Trump and Hitler, the parallels in their policy choices and their extolling of authoritarianism ought to be concerning enough to venture where political discourse seldom should go. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit, which provides risk assessment and business intelligence to corporations around the world, recently ranked Trump presidency as a top 10 risk facing the world. They cited three major concerns – disruption to the world economy, political chaos in the U.S., and heightened security threat to America and American interests around the world.

Trump being fascistic was based on my understanding of the broad strokes of history. Authoritarian leaders inevitably bring chaos all the while promising utopian fixes. While the U.S. is not the dominant world power it once was, mostly due to the inevitable rise of other countries, it still remains a nation with formidable hard and soft power. Perhaps one of the best places to look will be U.N.’s Human Development Index (HDI) that measures, “richness of human life, rather than simply the richness of the economy.” In 2015, the U.S. ranked #8. Countries outranking America are those whom Bernie Sanders hold out as models, such as Norway and Switzerland, and whom Trump dismisses as socialists. From 1990 to 2015, America’s HDI score improved by 6.5 percent, despite encountering several economic recessions along the way.

The area where U.S. performs worst is something that Trump never talks about – income inequality. After taking taxes into account, U.S. has the second highest level of income inequality, behind only Chile. According to a report from Pew Research, “U.S. tax and spending policy does relatively little, compared with its peers in the developed world, to reduce inequality.” Trump’s supporter are ostensibly angry because of economic sufferings, but the most important factor behind that suffering is virtually non-existent in Trump’s platitude of making America great again. The headline from Fortune magazine says it all, “Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Would Make the Rich Richer, Uncle Sam Poorer.” Debt will explode as the government takes-in less revenue. The economic populism that is supposedly behind Trump’s rise is mostly smokes and mirrors.

So what is fueling his rise? A study by Vox.com showed that people who favor conformity and are wary of outsiders correlate well with Trump supporters. Social scientists call such people authoritarians. Trump supporters may not view him as a dictator but his aggressive tone and polices resonate with their fears and anxieties. Trump’s odious views do not necessarily rise to fascism unless coupled with Trump’s incitement of violence. When he threatens to punch protestors or alludes to riots if the Republican Party does not coronate him, he is using the playbook of bullies. And when his supporters beat up Mexicans and Muslims, his threat is not protected free speech but akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

If you are not a Mexican, you may not be impacted by Trump’s characterization of Mexican immigrants as “rapists”. But those who are Mexican or perceived to be Mexican are already facing violent backlash at schools. If you are not Muslim, you may not care about imposing a ban of undefined length on all Muslims entering the U.S. But for those with family, social, and business ties to one-fifth of humanity, such ideas represent a clear and present danger. If you care not about international laws and treaties, you may turn a blind eye to Trump advocating torture and illegal killings of civilians. But those American service women and men, whose safety depends upon reciprocity, are undoubtedly at risk if Trump indeed follows through on his bluster. Recently when asked about his foreign policy advisors, Trump said he talks to himself. In other words, his is a cult of personality not a movement of ideas. If this is not fascistic, tell me what is?

Nationalism, condescension towards human rights, use of scapegoats for a unifying cause, sexism, threats to free journalism, subordinating all other concerns for national security, fetish for police power, are some of the common traits of fascism. Trump check marks on all of them, albeit in a modern American context. Trump has already disrupted social cohesion. Imagine how he may react when he feels the power of having his finger on the nuclear button. It is never too late to oppose fascists and there is no shame in switching sides to stand up to bullies.

Turkey and India are both democracies and significant American allies. Both India and Turkey are secular countries ruled by strong-willed leaders rooted in religion-based politics, Islam for Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hinduism for India’s Narendra Modi. Both leaders have shown an uncanny ability to galvanize popular support, although Modi recently suffered some setbacks (#BiharElections). And yet both of them have failed to heal their nation’s religious and ethnic divides. Now their divisive politics threaten to tear apart the social fabric of their country. India and Turkey are hardly alone in the rise of illiberal democracies but given their pivotal roles in global trade and security, their lurch towards illiberalism ought to elicit concern.

It’s been nearly two decades since Fareed Zakaria wrote his seminal article, “The Rise of the Illiberal Democracy” where he contended that democracy without free and fair elections, the rule of law, separation of powers and basic civil liberties afforded to all citizens of the country, is simply, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, “a tyranny of the majority.” In an illiberal democracy the sheer weight of the majority stifles dissent. This description is not only apt for Putin’s Russia but also for Modi’s India and Erdogan’s Turkey. And yet unlike Russians, both Indians and Turks remain more in control of their destinies, so long as they can muster the strength to transcend their parochialisms, primarily anti-Kurdish in the case of Turkey and anti-Muslim in the case of India.

The World Press Freedom Index places India 136 and Turkey 149 out of 180 countries. Writing about Turkey, the report notes that from 2012 to 2014 Turkey ranked 154 out of 180 but slightly improved its standing in 2015 because it conditionally released 40 journalists but “who nonetheless continue to face prosecution and could be detained again at any time.” Freedom of information in Turkey has declined because “cyber-censorship, lawsuits, dismissals of critical journalists and gag orders.” India’s low ranking stems from the daily abuses journalists face while trying to do their job, rising internet censorship and the political partisanship of India’s media.

As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarks on his trip to UK this week, over 200 noted authors have asked British Prime Minister David Cameron to raise the issue of the rising climate of intolerance and fear in India. This comes in the wake of wide ranging protests in India from artists, filmmakers, scientists, actors, scholars who have not only voiced concerns about intolerance but have also taken the extraordinary step of returning (wapsi) many of the prestigious awards they received(#awardwapsi). They did so as rumors have generated mob frenzy against writers and vulnerable minorities with muted reactions from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Just few weeks ago a Muslim man was lynched to death by a mob after spurious rumors spread that the man’s family had consumed and stored beef at their home. Cows are considered sacred by Hindus but generally Indians have been tolerant towards others who consume beef. However, the debate over imposing a ban on cow meat was resurrected recently when the ruling party introduced wide-ranging ban on the sale and consumption of beef in the right-leaning state of Maharashtra. Atop BJP politician recently said, “Muslims can continue to live in this country, but they will have to give up eating beef.” In addition, an Indian scholar, who happens to be an atheist, was killed after he criticized idol worship as a “meaningless ritual.”

In Turkey intolerance is different in nature but similar in essence. A small but influential group of Muslim social activists, pejoratively called Gulenists but self-described as the Hizmet movement, have been singled out for crackdown with little due process or evidence for their alleged crimes. Media outlets, often critical of the government and with ties to the Hizmet have been shut down and if allowed to operate have been intimidated by arresting leading journalists and unlawfully raiding their offices. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) have accused certain media enterprises of establishing a “parallel” state although very little evidence supports such assertion. The country’s judiciary has become a puppet. Recently a public prosecutor accused the head of the Hizmet movement, Pennsylvania based cleric Fethullah Gulen, of leading a criminal organization including operating an armed terror group. Gulen whose life has been devoted to dialogue among faith communities and excellence in secular education ought to be celebrated as a modern day King and Gandhi not ostracized as a pariah to a country for whom he professes great love. The fact that the crackdown on the Gulen-followers came after corruption scandal implicating Erdogan and his family, which Erdogan blamed as a Gulen conspiracy, is enough to tarnish the efficacy of Turkish democracy.

But nothing is more troubling than the way Turkey continues to handle the Kurdish issue much the same way India continues to play politics with Kashmir. Both the Kashmiris and the Kurds have suffered from state brutality that has then led to violence and terrorism. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict since the 1980s has led to over 40,000 deaths while the Indian-Kashmiri conflict has led to over 47,000 deaths. Although Erdogan did not start the Kurdish conflict but he has used the issue in the most cynical of ways. Promising dialogue at one point but resorting to violence after his party lost its parliamentary majority just a few months ago.

Both India and Turkey boasts large minority populations where nearly 1 in 5 people belong to a religious or ethnic minority. In Turkey, Kurds are often arrested under the pretext of national security. While in India arbitrary arrests of Muslims in terrorism cases are quite common. In Turkey, the military commits human rights violations in Kurdish areas while in India, the military does the same in not only Muslim-majority Kashmir but also in the Indian Northeast, home to many minority ethnic groups.

From the undermining of media, the stifling of dissent and marginalization of minorities, both India and Turkey at the height of their economic successes are threatening to not only undo their progress but also attempting to spark a backlash that can boomerang into greater regional conflict. President Obama has forged a personal relationship with both Erdogan and Modi. At the upcoming G20 summit in Antalya, Turkey he should make deteriorating human rights an important part of his conversation with both Erdogan and Modi. In addition, the American diaspora which boasts of significant number of supporters for both Modi and Erdogan should play the role of healers. Pro-AKP Turkish groups should engage with Gulen-followers and the pro-BJP Indian diaspora should reach to those who express deep angst about the growing intolerance in India. It is important that all Indians and Turks make a commitment to uphold the pluralistic and secular nature of the founding ideals of both Turkish and Indian democracy.

Follow Parvez Ahmed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/parvezahmed

Given my long public record of correcting misperceptions about Islam and championing the rights of American Muslims, why was I consorting with the so-called “enemy”? If one considers Jews as eternal threats to Muslims, then discordant opposition may seem sensible and engagement foolhardy. However, I hold out hope, “that one day mankind will … be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land” (Martin Luther King, Jr.).

My journey, which was undertaken with 22 Muslim civic leaders, has unfortunately become a source of consternation in a small circle of influential activists. Particularly dismaying is a petition that casts aspersions on the program and its founder, Imam Abdullah Antepli.

While MLI has become the subject of attack, mostly by those with limited personal knowledge about its curriculum, overwhelming majority of MLI participants, both current and past, remain committed to engagement. Critics provide two arguments as central to their opposition. First, MLI violates the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes boycott of Israel as a way to end its occupation of Palestine. And second, MLI “faith-washes” the occupation.

BDS as an idea may have some merits, but by pushing social and academic boycott, it fails to distinguish between the policies of the Israeli government and the activities of its civil society. Conflating the two, not only marginalizes Jews who are striving for solutions to this intractable conflict but also Arabs who live in Israel and are engaged in finding common ground with Jews. Secondly, a decade after its inception, support for BDS is far from universal even among those sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians. For example, Turkey has significantly increased its trade with Israel, while trade with Egypt remains robust, gaining strength even under the Muslim Brotherhood government. Meanwhile, mistreatment and suffering of the Palestinian people has increased.

Critics also attack MLI based on an inflammatory and misleading claim that it “faith-washes” the occupation. The MLI program did not frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a struggle between Judaism and Islam. It accepted the fact that the conflict is a top concern and the most incendiary flashpoint between Jews and Muslims, not just Arabs and Palestinians. In addition, MLI’s curriculum neither justifies the occupation nor dilutes the suffering of Palestinians.

Rather than succumb to the narrative of perpetual conflict, I chose the path of engagement because the struggle for peace and justice requires mainstream American Jewish and Muslim communities making common cause, which is only possible in an environment of mutual trust. Given that nearly 8 in 10 Jews in the U.S. are either very or somewhat emotionally attached to Israel, and thus Zionists, any engagement effort by American Muslims will have to find creative ways to meet and dialogue with Jews in Israel. And yet I am under no illusions that my actions, as a private citizen, would magically alter the brutal politics of the region.

Faced with vitriolic opposition, saying no to MLI would have been the popular choice, allowing me to comfortably stay within my bubble without risking to ask if there is another way forward. However, the words of Donniel Hartman, President of SHI, resonated with me, “As a Jew, I do not want to live in a zero-sum-game world with Islam. I yearn to live in a world where Jews, Christians and Muslims of good faith reach out to each other, live with each other, disagree respectfully with each other and most importantly, learn from each other. That will only happen when we have the courage to meet and hear each other.” Abdullah Antepli and Yossi Klein Halevi, a Senior Fellow at SHI, provided further assurance, “Our purpose in promoting dialogue isn’t to seek consensus but mutual understanding and respect. We will continue to disagree about many issues.”

As advertised, my teachers at SHI were just as eager to listen as they were to convey. For many of them, MLI offered a rare opportunity to have meaningful dialogue with Muslims. The seminars and conversations were intellectually stimulating and emotionally challenging. But I could not overlook the obvious. Israel prides itself in being a Jewish state, which implies a significant commitment to the values of Judaism. And yet nowhere is such commitment severely undermined than in Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. My surreal experience of walking to the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron is illustrative. What should have been a short trek took well over thirty minutes. Between check-points and settler intrusions the entry way to the mosque now meanders through a mostly empty marketplace. Between arbitrary shutting down of buildings, citing security concerns, and the paucity of Israeli action to rein-in settler misbehavior, life along the alleyway leading to the Ibrahimi mosque has become untenable. And yet the unremitting spirit of the Palestinian people shone through in the meetings we held with civil society leaders in Hebron.

Perhaps most illuminating was a visit with Palestinians living in Israel, who now number 1.6 million, approximating 21 percent of the Israel’s population. I was inspired meeting with Mohammad Darawshe from the Center for Shared Society whose mission, “is to build an inclusive, socially cohesive society in Israel by engaging divided communities … based on mutual responsibility, civic equality and a shared vision of the future.” Thanks in part to his efforts, Arab share of students at Technion (Israel’s MIT), stands at 21 percent up from just 11 percent about a decade or so ago, with the ratio of Arab men and women at nearly 50-50. This success has been greatly aided by Jewish philanthropists. Such small flowers of hope bear intoxicating fragrance of optimism.

Dialogue is an inclusive process that entails learning, not just talking. More often than not, dialogue leads to sustainable resolutions of conflicts, not just cessation of hostilities, because dialogue recognizes the humanity of “others.” MLI offers a modest pathway towards improving Jewish-Muslim relations by creating a safe-space for honest dialogue about each other’s narratives.

There are no guarantees for success and yet a program that allows the development of mutual trust seems a better way forward as it also offers an opportunity to mitigate the Islamophobia and anti-Semitism roiling our communities. I look forward to continuing my journey because I do not want my children and grandchildren to inherit a world where Jews and Muslims view each other as interminable enemies. Engagement is not appeasement. Dialogue is not capitulation.

This is first of a series from my visit to Israel and Palestine earlier this summer.