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

After giving the Muslim Brotherhood only a year in office, why did the Egyptian public turn against them? A New York Times article stated that before Morsi’s ouster there was erosion in support for the Brotherhood even in traditional strongholds. This was due to, “confusing economic policies of the Brotherhood-led government.” Another popular complaint against Morsi was that the Brotherhood was, “focusing too exclusively on his (their) Islamist base.”

The first complaint stems from the Brotherhood’s lack of governing experience. However, the second complaint is more foreboding as they go to the heart of the trouble with Islamist politics. Ambivalence about pluralistic values undermines democracy.

The Associated Press (AP) defines Islamists as, “advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.” AP’s definition is useful but unsatisfying as it fails to distinguish between those who want the values of Islam to inform laws and those who want to impose their parochial interpretations of Shariah (the moral code and religious law of Islam). Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the Middle East and North Africa and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) in South Asia want the latter.

In contrast, other political forces in the Muslim world, such as the National Forces Alliance in Libya, favor laws to be guided by the values of Islam but do not wish to impose Shariah. This puts them squarely with the majority. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in “Who Speaks for Islam?” noted that “having an enriched religious/spiritual life” is an important priority for Muslims. Majorities in most Muslim countries want Shariah to be “a” not “the” source of legislation. This seems to be no different from the aspirations of a Christian majority country such as the United States. In 2006, Gallup Poll showed 46 percent of Americans saying they want the Bible to be “a” source of legislation.

The upsurge in support for Islamist politics is the confluence of two trends – a repudiation of the disastrous policies of past regimes and a growing view among Muslims that Shariah can be an effective bulwark against the oppressive corruption and monopolization of power by the elite. A recent Pew Poll shows that clear majorities support implementation of Shariah. However, Muslims do not have a unified understanding of what Shariah means in practice. In addition, the survey finds, “most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society.” Muslims favor democracy, symbiotic coexistence with others and a system of governance that best reflects their own ethical values. Islamists like the ruling secularists they deposed have not been able to translate this aspiration into effective governance.

How to reconcile the desire for Shariah with the erosion in support for Islamists? The realpolitik of the Islamists that has left many disillusioned. In Egypt, the MB had left the powers of the military unrestrained, much to the chagrin of the Tahrir revolutionaries. In Libya, MB was viewed as pawns of foreign powers such as Qatar. In Bangladesh, the JI has been viewed with suspicion because of anecdotal accounts of their past collaboration with the Pakistani army in slaughtering hundreds of fellow countrymen during Bangladesh’s war of liberation. In Pakistan, the chief of JI described Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistani Taliban a martyr.

In Turkey, the conservative AKP came to power as a result of the failures of the secular elite in ensuring broad economic prosperity. During its first two terms AKP succeeded by delivering stunning economic results. All that has begun to crumble as the AKP is now embroiled in corruption scandals and have begun to push conservative social policies going so far as to suggest how many children women should have. AKP’s foreign policy is in shambles. A recent headline in the influential Foreign Policy summed it best, “How Turkey Went From ‘Zero Problems’ to Zero Friends.”  AKP’s growing unpopularity even with religious conservatives, such as the influential Fetahullah Gulen, may represent a turning point in not only Turkish politics but Islamist politics globally.

The twentieth century marked the rise of political Islam, from Jamaat-e-Islami in the South Asia to Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and North Africa. But once in power the Islamists, with the exception of the early period of AKP rule, have proven to be ineffective. They are prone to the same abuse of power that characterized the ruling elites they deposed. From Egypt to Bangladesh Muslims are increasingly uneasy. Beyond their utopian slogans that “Islam is the solution,” there is little track record and consensus about how to practically implement Shariah in a way that will deliver economic and social justice for all people. Islamists need to espouse a more secular vision that is inclusive of all people and not subservient to their base. Secularists need to spiritualize their politics by espousing public policies that better reflect the public’s aspiration that fulfill the objectives of Shariah. Politicization of Shariah and Shariahization of politics are a disservice to the faith of Islam and they have proven to be divisive thus far.

This article first ran on Turkey’s leading English daily, Today’s Zaman.

Convergence of interests and values
by Parvez Ahmed*

It happens once in a blue moon — the convergence of Western military action with Arab and Muslim public opinion. The last time we witnessed such convergence was during the US-led interventions in the Balkans, which stopped an ethnic cleansing and eventually brought peace to a troubled region of the world. Contrary to assertions from some, Libya 2011 is not Iraq of 2003.

Whereas the war in Iraq lacked any international legitimacy, the military intervention in Libya has legal authority in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. In addition, enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya also has the support of the Arab League, symbolic as that support may be. But most importantly, unlike 2003, there are no mass demonstrations either in Arab or Western capitals opposing another Western military adventure in yet another Muslim majority country.

The lack of opposition should not be mistaken for a lack of concern. The history of Western military interventions in the region has been largely perceived as neocolonial imperialism. The fact that Iraq remains a bloody mess and Afghanistan a quagmire adds to the anxiety. And yet the hope that has sprung from the peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt gives us reason to believe that military intervention in Libya, as abhorrent as the idea may be, was the right thing to do in order to thwart the brutality of yet another Arab dictator. Something has fundamentally changed in the Arab and Muslim world. The rest of the world is now being forced, albeit reluctantly, to contend with that reality.

Speaking to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, US Sen. John Kerry gave voice to the optimism being felt by many, despite lingering concerns. “If liberation can be translated into lasting democracy, then the new Arab awakening will carry a vital message: simply, that ordinary people everywhere have the ability to determine for themselves how they are governed. The developments in Egypt and Tunisia also represent a dramatic blow against the extremism that we have been struggling with this past decade or more — a blow against extremism that we could not have dealt ourselves.”

Sen. Kerry went on to say, “But just as the Berlin Wall could not be rebuilt, so we know that the old order of the Middle East cannot be restored.” To stop the restoration of the old order, military intervention in Libya became necessary. If the Muammar Gaddafi regime had overrun Benghazi, as they were poised to do, the Arab spring could have prematurely ended amidst deep suspicion that the West could have stopped the massacre but chose not to. This would have further emboldened the brutal repressions already under way from Yemen to Bahrain. In Yemen the defection of a senior military leader provides hope that if Western powers abandon their realpolitik and finally align their interests with their values, not only the people but also the extant power establishment may reject their brutal overlords.

Michael Gerson, speechwriter to former US President George W. Bush, in a recent op-ed to The Washington Post wrote: “When a government engages in genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity — effectively waging war against its own citizens — other nations have the right and duty to intervene. In Libya, this abstract norm became a basis for action. The Obama administration deserves credit for its part in establishing this precedent.” The Arab spring has offered a Sputnik moment for US foreign policy. It appears that President Obama is slowly warming up to the idea that transformative change not only requires moral leadership of words but unfortunately necessitates the use of force when force becomes the only way to stop crimes against humanity. Rwanda still haunts us.

The reticence of emerging democratic powers such as Turkey, Brazil and India to join hands in this effort remains a source of concern. Although negotiations remain the preferred way to end this standoff, Gaddafi’s intransigence coupled with his threat to go door to door to clean out “rebels” offers scant hope for a peaceful resolution.
The extraordinary convergence of Western policy and Arab/Muslim public opinion needs further cementing. Sen. Kerry wants to introduce legislation to financially support “new and fledgling democracies in the region.” Sen. Kerry asserts, “We ought to be helping governments reform their security sectors, building transparency into the fabric of government ministries, strengthening the rule of law and helping leaders to incorporate the views of their public in the day-to-day work that they’re engaged in.”

Turkey, with its long history of democracy and its experience as part of its European Union accession process as well as with enacting changes that brings laws and policies to the standards expressed by Sen. Kerry, must play a pivotal role going forward. Only then can Turkey’s aspiration of zero problems with its neighbors become a sustainable policy.

Abuse of Women is Sadly Endemic
Parvez Ahmed

Amidst all the euphoria about Egypt’s peaceful revolution, the news of CBS news reporter Lara Logan being sexually assaulted hits like a ton of bricks. The people of Egypt, especially its youth, have been such an inspiration that any hint of deviant behavior understandably elicits gasps and should provoke soul searching. Sadly the incident is not as isolated.

A 2008 survey by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights shows 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women reporting being sexually harassed. Six in 10 men admitted to such behavior. How is it that Muslim society’s, which often pontificate about conservative values and uses such mantra to advocate segregation, that women are denied the most basic of dignity?

The Islamic scripture is unequivocal that the proper treatment of women is a cornerstone in developing personal piety and societal harmony. In chapter 9 verse 71, the Quranic paradigm is clear, “The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger. On them will God pour His Mercy: for God is Exalted in power, Wise.”

Expounding on the subject of gender relations, noted Islamic scholar Jamal Badawi writes, “Under no circumstances does the Quran encourage, allow or condone violence (against women). In extreme cases … it allows for a husband to administer a gentle pat to his wife that causes no physical harm to the body nor leaves any sort of mark. …. In the event that dispute cannot be resolved equitably between husband and wife, the Quran prescribes mediation between the parties through family intervention on behalf of both spouses.” Badawi is attempting to contextualize the Quranic verse 4:34. And yet many Muslim religious leaders do not place this verse into its proper context, making it ripe for abuse both at the hands of Muslim men and by those who blame Islam for all that ails the Muslim world.

Contradictions between the teaching in sacred texts and the reality on the ground are not limited to Egypt or the segregated and repressive Gulf States. In Turkey, 4 out of 10 women are physically abused by their husbands, according to a recent study titled “Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey.”

To be fair, abuse of women is not exclusively a Muslim problem. The same day that the Lara Logan story broke, news media also reported that female members of the U.S. Navy were alleging cover up of widespread rape. A U.S. Justice Department study shows that 1 in 6 American women are raped during their lifetimes. Nearly half of all murders of women in the U.S. are committed by a romantic partner. Abuse of women is just as problematic in conservative Muslim societies as they are in the liberal West. This underscores the need for less finger-pointing and ought to provide the impetus to collectively address the issue.

The abuse women in Muslim societies are particularly jolting because of its stark contrast with the normative teachings of Islam. I often have the privilege of speaking to people of other faiths about Islam and Muslims. Such contradictions are what most troubles my audience and why they continue to harbor negative opinions about Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia cannot be overcome by merely preaching Islam. It will require Muslims to live Islam and their societies to reflect Islam’s values and ethics. While Muslim preachers rail against those who prevent women from wearing headscarves or hijab they are largely silent on the endemic abuse of women. While Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, are quick to defend segregation as a way to “protect” women they have taken few measures to stem the pervasive mistreatment of women in their own backyards.

In the general gloom and doom of the Middle East, once again it is the educated and enlightened Muslim youth that is providing a ray of hope. Visit the Facebook page titled, “Lara Logan: An apology from Egypt.” The messages of apology seem heartfelt. Many Egyptians are rightfully ashamed of this ignominy. My fervent hope is that they turn this moment of shame into motivation for positive change that eradicates this ‘social cancer.’ Can Arabs and Muslims once again turn their hopeful eyes towards Egypt leading the path to civilization? CNN producer and camerawoman Mary Rogers gives voice to the hope of many, “Perhaps it will be people power, the same people power that brought down a regime, that will successfully combat sexual harassment. But the only real protection women can have is when the attitudes of men change.”

[Professor Parvez Ahmed is a Fulbright Scholar and Associate Professor of Finance at the University of North Florida.]