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

Published in the Florida Times Union, Feb 7, 2021.

by Parvez Ahmed

When terrorists claiming to act in the name of my faith attacked the homeland on Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims in America were not only targeted for surveillance, they were also repeatedly asked to condemn terrorism even when the only thing they shared with the terrorists was their religion. Frenzied protests were mounted when a group of Muslims wanted to build a spiritual community center not far from the World Trade Towers.

At a personal level, I recall with pain, my own saga going through the process of being confirmed as a Human Rights Commissioner for the city of Jacksonville. City Council members grilled me on “Islamic” terrorism and cared little about my views on human rights. During the confirmation hearing one Republican council member went as far as asking me to pray to “my God” before voting against me.

Despite having no material connections to any terrorists, many Muslims were hounded by the media, their loyalty questioned in public and frequently discriminated at work. The frenzy reached its peak when candidate Donald J. Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S. and followed up with his first executive action to essentially criminalize my faith by enacting a travel ban from several Muslim majority countries. The U.S. Supreme Court later upheld a watered-down version of this discriminatory policy. Post 9-11 realities, from government-sanctioned detentions at airports to privately ginned up “protests” by hate groups, have left a deep scar in ways unimaginable. All this in the name of national security.

Fast forward to the Capitol attacks on Jan. 6. The rioters, far from being an impromptu flash mob, were incited by repeated assertions of a big lie that the presidential election was stolen. They planned in plain view to storm the Capitol. They wanted to kill or kidnap the next two in the line of succession to the President – Trump’s own Vice President and the Democratic Speaker of the House. A report released in October 2020 concluded that white supremacist groups pose a grave danger to the nation. And yet no one is asking all elected Republican officials to put out clear statements of condemnations. No one is demanding that Republican voters explain why their side is aiding and abetting terrorism. No security agency is engaged in surveillance of Republicans.

Despite my trauma of being harassed and surveilled, I am not advocating for its reciprocation. I am weary of additional intrusive laws against domestic terrorism that could lead to stereotyping and when the inevitable abuses happen, Black and Brown communities will be its primary victims. However, it is hard to miss the contrast in the treatment of Muslims versus Republicans, both Americans.

That White perpetrators of terrorism are being treated differently than Black or Brown perpetrators, is no accident of history. This is the outcome of our caste-based system so graphically and eloquently outlined in Isabel Wilkerson’s bestseller “Caste – The Origins of Our Discontents.”

The long arc of American history is not just the rosy stories we tell ourselves about the triumphs of justice but the stories we hate to admit – the perpetuation of our caste-based society where “a fixed and embedded ranking of human value” is based on, “the presumed supremacy of one group against the presumed inferiority of other groups on the basis of ancestry and often immutable traits.”

If not the presumed superiority, what explains the hypocrisy in the way terrorism committed by Muslims is distinguished from terrorism committed by Whites who responded to the incitement of a Republican President? It appears that once again as a society we are failing to hold White supremacy accountable for its sordid history of violence and sedition.

Parvez Ahmed is Director for Diversity and Inclusion and Professor of Finance at UNF’s Coggin College of Business. His views are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of UNF or the Coggin College of Business.
 
You can read more about the author here.

Follow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/parvezahmed

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.

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.

London elects its first Muslim mayor to a sense of hope

Florida Times Union, May 16, 2016

Sadiq Khan, a Muslim, being elected Mayor of London, topples a pervading narrative and in its wake leaves behind unparalleled opportunities. The son of Pakistani immigrants rising to run one of the leading cities in the globe is almost as remarkable as the more celebrated story across the pond, that of a Black man rising to lead the world’s most powerful country. The parallels are uncanny. Both Barack Obama and Sadiq Khan were lawyers who met their wives while working as colleagues at a law firm. Both have two young daughters. Both were wrongly accused of palling around with terrorists and against heavy odds succeeded in beating back a dog-whistle campaign laced with racism and Islamophobia.

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.

Is South Asia becoming a beacon for democracy? On the heels of an inspiring voter turnout in Afghanistan, voters in India are mobilizing in one of the most impressive exercises in universal adult franchise. Just a few months earlier, Pakistan had its first peaceful democratic transition in power. Bangladesh, surprisingly, was an outlier when the ruling party swept back into power via a non-election election. A boycott by the opposition led to a majority of the ruling party members being elected unopposed. Despite this, the general trend in South Asia is positive, with India once again leading the way.

In India, this year, an estimated 814.5 million people are eligible to vote. This is up from 713 million voters in 2009, representing an impressive 14 percent increase, with the largest increase in voter registrations coming from younger Indians. Elections will be held in 28 Indian states and 7 union territories. Two national political parties are in contention — the Indian National Congress (INC), established in 1885 and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), established in 1980. There are well over 50 regional or state political parties, some of them splinter groups from the national parties, and others independently organized. However, it is the regional parties that will collectively decide the fate of the next Indian government as the neither of the national parties will win the majority of the seats being contested. Indian politics is increasingly Balkanized and a national election is really an amalgamation of many regional elections. Since 1989, no single political party has mustered a clear majority in any national election.

In its 16th general election, Indian voters will elect 543 out of the 545 seats of the lower house of parliament, called the Lok Sabha or People’s House. National elections take place once every five years unless the ruling party calls for an early vote or loses the confidence of a majority of its members. The Lok Sabha will select the prime minister, who is the head of government.

The Indian Election Commission, a constitutional body independent of the government, conducts the election. The campaign season mercifully lasts only eight weeks, although voting in some states can begin as early as two weeks after the official opening of the campaign season. Ballots are cast electronically over six weeks, from April 7 to May 12 this year, in nine phases. In the three phases completed thus far, voter turnout has been higher than the expected 60 percent. Results will not be announced until all regions have completed voting.

The Election Commission is required to have a polling place within 1.2 miles of every voter. To fulfill this mandate requires 10 million polling officials and security personnel in 930,000 polling stations. Election day in each region is a paid holiday for all non-essential workers. Even part-time workers are granted paid leave fulfilling an Election Commission mandate that every eligible voter shall be given the proper means to fulfill their right.

Indian democracy faces some of the same challenges that our American democracy faces, from the corrosive influence of money to the problem of incumbency. However, unlike the US, 75 percent of the source of funds to Indian political parties is unknown, according to the Association of Democratic Reform. Of the sources that are known, 87 percent of the funding comes from the corporate sector or business houses. In India where the average per capita income is a shade over Rs. 50,000 ($830), the largest donors lavished money on the political parties to the tune of several million dollars. Industrialist Aditya Birla’s group gave Rs. 360 million to INC and Rs. 260 million to its rival BJP.

The Association of Democratic Reform also reports that the average candidate owned Rs. 50 million worth in assets. In the last Lok Sabha, the average wealth of a member of parliament was Rs. 100 million. The average Indian will have to live longer than Noah to achieve these levels of wealth gains. More alarmingly, 30 percent of the candidates have a criminal case against them. India’s National Election Watch announced that of the 162 parliamentarians involved in 306 criminal cases, 76 are charged with serious crimes like murder, attempted murder and kidnapping.

The nationalist and Hindu fundamentalist BJP party is likely to muster enough seats to form a coalition government with Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister. Indians are poised to give the religious right yet another chance mainly because the secularist INC has failed to deliver on their promise of equitable economic growth and are now mired in many corruption scandals. After growing at 8 percent a year, the Indian economy has slowed down to a 5 percent rate of growth. Narendra Modi, who is head of the Indian state of Gujarat, has delivered above average economic growth for his state and projects to replicate this success all across India. His slogan toilets before temple have given hope to many that he will keep his fundamentalist roots subservient to his pro-business credentials.

Modi has a checkered past. He failed to stop mob violence against the Muslim minority in his state that lead to the death of over a thousand people with many more displaced. This is the primary reason Modi has been denied entry into the United States for nearly a decade now. About 16,000 Muslims displaced in the communal riots of 2002 still remain in relief colonies where they are denied even the most basic amenities. While Modi boasts of his state’s impressive economic growth he blames “vegetarianism and figure-conscious Gujarati girls” as the reason his state ranks high on malnutrition. Nearly half the children below the age of five suffer from malnutrition and nearly 70 percent children in Modi’s ‘Shining Gujarat’ suffer from anemia.

Modi’s religious fundamentalist roots are worrisome for women in India, who are increasingly the target of male chauvinism often emanating for religious fundamentalists. According to Human Rights Watch, women during the communal riots of 2002 Gujarat were stripped, gang-raped, then burned or hacked to death. Indian women are worried that violence against women will not receive the priority it should in the wake of several high profile rape cases. In Gujarat there are 918 women for every 1000 men. This is below the national average of 940, perhaps suggesting a high level of female infanticide in Gujarat.

Indians are caught between a rock and hard place. On one hand they desperately want the government to re-ignite India’s economic growth. And yet the party with the most pro-business credential is also cloaked in anti-modern social views that will further disadvantage India’s struggling minorities and women. Modi’s slogan, toilets before temples, sounds good but the fact that temples come ahead of improving social cohesion, should make Indians nervous. We have seen plenty of examples around the world where religious fundamentalists capitalized on the economic failure of the secularists but once in power they drifted rightward leaving the country more divided. Modi may turn around India’s economic performance but at what cost to the poor, the minority and the disenfranchised, remains a question and concern.

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.

In 2011, along with millions of people around the world, I was mesmerized by the peaceful popular uprisings in Tahrir Square that eventually led to the end of three decades of dictatorial rule in Egypt. As the youth cheered, I felt solidarity in declaring “we are all Egyptians now.” I cannot say the same now. Two years ago Egyptians rejoiced in unison as the birth of people’s power seemed possible. Today many of the same people seem apathetic to army bullets killing fellow Egyptians.

Long before the General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi forcibly removed Mohammed Morsi from the Presidency, Egyptian society was descending into a spiral of polarization. A poll conducted in May of 2013 by the Arab American Institute showed that more than 90 percent of those who identified with the Islamists said they were “better off” than five years ago. However, more than 80 percent of those associated with the opposition and the “disaffected plurality” claimed that they were “worse off.” Among those Egyptians not affiliated with either the Islamists or their opposition only one percent claims that they are better off today while 83 percent perceived that they are worse off. And yet such disaffection does not justify a coup d’etat, which has only exasperated polarization not resolved it.

The Egyptian military is like a hammer that sees every political problem as an existential security nail. So predictably, knowing only how to wield a hammer, they resorted to solving a political problem by hammering a nail into the coffin of democracy. And while they did so, many Egyptians cheered, unfazed by irony that they were essentially burning the village to purportedly save it.

While the military is blameworthy the Muslim Brotherhood can hardly claim innocence because they failed to pay heed to the disaffection that preceded their rise to power. A 2012 opinion survey by Brookings showed that 71 percent of Egyptians felt that it was a mistake for the Brotherhood to renege on their promise to not field a candidate for the Presidency. The Brotherhood incorrectly perceived their electoral victory as a mandate to inject religion into politics. While 6 in 10 Egyptians wanted Sharia to be the basis of Egyptian law, 83 percent wanted Sharia to be adapted to modern times. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed wanted the Egyptian democracy to be modeled after Turkey, a secular republic currently being successfully ruled by moderate Islamists (the Gezi park fiasco notwithstanding).

Most of all, Egyptians sought good governance and a relief from the crushing 13.2 percent unemployment that has resulted in 8 out of every 10 jobless Egyptians being under the age of 30 with more than a quarter of them holding university degrees. The Brotherhood by pursuing a parochial agenda essentially missed an opportunity to demonstrate that like Turkey’s Islamists they were a marked improvement over the regime they replaced. Not all of its failings were their fault though. The New York Times recently reported that Egypt’s deep state had conspired to make the Morsi government look bad. The day after Morsi was ousted, gas supplies and electrical power magically returned to normalcy.

Despite my euphoria in 2011, I had sounded a cautionary alarm, “Standing at the edge of a new dawn, one cannot help but be hopeful. But this euphoria of hope should not detract attention from a basic fact — democracy is a process, not an outcome. The process requires engagement and vigilance. Removing a dictatorial regime is not enough, for democracy is not merely the rule of the majority but also necessitates the protection of minority rights and voices.”

The Brotherhood missed an opportunity to unite Egypt by creating an inclusive constitutional process, underscored by the fact that only 1 in 3 eligible voters participated in the constitutional referendum. The opposition was just as incompetent by being unable to mount a viable counter narrative and now appears unscrupulous by cheering a coup d’etat that is witnessing the return of the old Mubarak cronies. The Brotherhood and its opposition each in their zeal to prevail are blinded to the reality that only a democratic and inclusive Egypt that respects the dignity of all its citizens, including women and all minorities will truly honor the aspirations of the Arab Spring when Egypt stood united and people worlds away from Tahrir felt like saying we are all Egyptians now. Two years ago, the millions on the street inspired hope. Today they evoke fear.