Guess where in the world candidates for political office are pandering to religious conservatives, using religious imagery in political advertisement and participating in political forums in houses of worship? Where some voters are unwilling to support candidates because they do not belong to the majority faith, dismissing a candidate because they are women, and using religious purity as a litmus test for eligibility? If you said Iowa, USA you will be correct. Cairo, Egypt also qualifies as the correct answer.

The nexus between politics and religion has been on the rise globally for quite some time now. It is an irony that it is the religious right in each country that often expresses the most misgivings about the rise of the religious right in other countries. In America, Republican presidential candidates, with support from the religious right, are the most vocal in their criticism of Islamist politics. On the other hand, Islamists are quick to conflate American hegemony in their region with a war against Islam. The mutual paranoia is palpable.

Elections are underway in Egypt for a new parliament. Openly vying for seats are political parties from the puritanical Salafis, to the conservative Ikhwanis (Muslim Brotherhood) and a plethora of smaller secular groups. After the first round of voting it appears that the religious right, Salafis and the Brotherhood together, will have majority control of the parliament. Similar Islamist victories in Tunisia and Morocco portend an unmistakable trend of increased intertwining of religion and politics in the region.

A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that while a majority of Muslims prefer a significant role for Islam in their politics, substantive differences persist across regions. Majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria favor changing current laws to allow religiously sanctioned capital punishment for adultery, stealing and apostasy. In contrast, Muslims living under secular democracies in Turkey or Lebanon overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism and self-identify themselves as modernists, even when actively practicing their faith.

As politics face a rightward religious tug across the globe, it will be hasty to stereotype the trend. In the U.S., although the Christian right exerts an enormous influence in politics but the state remains neutral towards religion, the occasional display of Christmas trees in government buildings notwithstanding. Such institutional separation between state and religion is lacking across the Middle East, most disconcertingly in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Will the wave of popular opinions that favor a greater role for Islam in politics inevitably lead to a theocratization of the nascent Middle Eastern democracies? Chances are good that the new democracies in Tunisia or Egypt are unlikely to resemble Saudi Arabia or Iran, but neither will they be Jeffersonian.

Reformist scholars of Islam have asserted that Sharia ought not to be codified as state law. The reasons are tantalizingly simple. A state is a political institution, not a religious authority. A state has to be neutral and beneficial towards all its citizens, not just those who belong to the majority. The Muslim belief in the divineness of Sharia is obviously not shared by people of other faiths. Moreover, the interpretation of Sharia is a fallible human endeavor, often leading to conflicting juristic opinions, which then leaves unanswered the question of whose Islam should the state endorse.

While public policy may reflect the values of the citizenry, it should not be promulgated in the name of any one religion. Even when religious values inform a certain policy, the primary reason for enacting public policy must be secular. A wall separating religion from statecraft is good for both religion and state. Once a state begins to enforce the laws of any religion then the coercive power of the state becomes the primary factor in the determining how religion gets practiced. The state loses credibility and faith loses spirituality. The Quran unequivocally states that there is no compulsion in matters related to religion.

Even in the rough and tumble world of Middle Eastern politics there are faint signs of hope. The Islamist leaders in Tunisia have spoken about the secular democracy of Turkey as their aspiring model. A New York Times report quoted a conservative party leader in Egypt saying, “We don’t accept tyranny in the name of religion any more than we accept tyranny in the name of the military.” The yearning for freedom may ultimately overcome parochial religiosity in politics. From Iowa to Cairo, the world watches with trepidation.

Huffington Post, Feb 1, 2011
Florida Times Union, Feb 2, 2011
A Sputnik Moment for U.S. Foreign Policy

The Jasmine Revolution has led to the ouster of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the autocratic leader of Tunisia and has sparked similar revolutionary fervor from Algeria to Egypt. The success in Tunisia has emboldened protestors across the Middle East demanding greater freedom and dignity. The many unforgettable images of the demonstrators are helping to erase the myth of Muslims and Arabs being apathetic to democracy and docile to authoritarian rule. Democracy deficiency has been a fact of life in the Middle East not because the people did not want it but because for decades American support propped up the Arab dictators, all in the name of stability. This policy is now in shambles. Today the region can boast neither stability nor freedom. The “Sputnik moment” opportunity is to reorient the arc of U.S. foreign policy from being solely motivated by American national interests to being guided by the universal values of freedom, liberty, rule of law and democracy.

American Presidents, both Republican and Democrats, have not been totally callous about the lack of freedom and liberty in the Middle East. But they have always made the need for stability in a region whose natural resources (oil) fuels America’s economic engine a more urgent priority. Although Egypt and Jordan does not supply the U.S. with oil, their peace treaty with Israel makes them important linchpins of American foreign policy. The dictators in the region obviously know all that and gladly play the fear-card to keep America in their corner, no matter how diametrically opposed their domestic policies are to American values. The Abdullahs and the Mubaraks have for decades successfully invoked the specter of religious hardliners coming to power in the absence of their iron-fisted rules. The distinction between religious conservatives and lawless terrorists were maliciously and deliberately blurred. With Western support Mubarak had cracked down on political opposition often in the name of fighting terrorism. Decades of such actions seeded the violence that convulses much of the Middle East today.

The Iranian experience provided a further pretext. The toppling of an unpopular U.S. puppet, the Shah, was followed by a government hostile to Western interests and restrictive of the freedom and liberty of its own people. When faced with calls for greater democracy, the U.S. foreign policy establishment often argued that the removal of a dictator in the Middle East will not necessarily increase the chances of a liberal democracy in the region. Underlying this assumption is a fallacy that often drives American public opinion about Islam, Muslims and the Arabs — the propensity to judge vast swaths of people, spanning different cultural backgrounds and historical experiences, with the worst behavior or examples from that part of the world.

For every Iran there is a Turkey. Muslims are neither monolithic nor merely shaped by their religious beliefs. Turkey and Bangladesh for example have held on to their secular democracy, even when religious conservatives rose to power. Instead of using the fear of an Iranian-type religious takeover in Egypt as a pretext to extend President Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian rule, it will be far better to take into account the unique cultural contours of Egypt.

With its three millennium of civilizational experience, Egypt is far more tolerant and pluralistic than many on the outside are led to believe. While religious movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood enjoy some support in Egypt, they are not universally adored. Although, it is likely that in an open and democratic Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood will play some role (unlikely to be dominant), there is no need to fear monger such a possibility. The next Egyptian regime will have to bear in mind that the so-called Arab street is now wide awake. They will not tolerate any government that fails to meet the demands of their people. If a brutal dictator ruling with the unqualified support of the West could be removed in a few days of street protests, as in Tunisia with Egypt hopefully being next, then no regime that rules without the consent of the governed will ever be safe. In addition, the successes, both at home and abroad, of a religiously conservative government in secular Turkey provide a practical model for conservative political forces to emulate in the region.

The time has come for the U.S. government to demonstrate to the Arab and Muslim world that it is indeed on the side of the people. Support for the true democratic aspirations of the people in the region can go a long way in restoring America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world. Anything less will only plunge these societies into further darkness from whence could emerge ever more dangerous reactionary and militant forces. The Sputnik moment has arrived. Will President Obama exhibit transformational leadership to provide meaningful American support in transitioning this region to democratic rule of law? Will the Egyptian people see America on their side or will they interpret the mantra of “orderly transition” as code for keeping the Mubarak regime alive, albeit on life support.