No one can quibble with President General Pervez Musharraf’s plea for “enlightened moderation” in Pakistan and the Islamic world. It is also good to know that the OIC has seen the wisdom of his formulation. Pan-Islamic fanaticism and extremism have seriously injured the Muslim nation-state and international law governing nation-states by conjuring up a clash of civilisations. The injury to the Muslim nation-state is both from the inside and the outside. On the inside it is manifested in an erosion of secular law, culture and economy. On the outside it is a result of new pre-emptive doctrines that seek to erode the Muslim nation-state’s sovereignty and undermine international law. Within the Muslim nation state, fanatics and extremists think on the basis of an ahistorical approach. To their minds, the interests of the religion conflict with the interests of the nation-state and therefore the former should take precedence over the latter. Within the non-Muslim nation-state, they put the nation-state first and religion second.
But, to be meaningful, good intentions must transform rhetoric into action. And action must begin at home. On that score, General Musharraf’s record is poor. The attack against fanaticism and extremism must concentrate on its roots as well as its most overt and ugly manifestations. To be sure, fanaticism and extremism are born in the crucible of illiteracy and unemployment, hence the problem can be tackled in the long term by promoting rational science-based education and providing jobs (the ‘Zubeida Jalal approach’). But it is by no means a sufficient and swift answer. All the leaders of the religious extremist and fanatic groups are at least technically well-educated and moneyed. Many of their rank-and-file hail from middle class backgrounds, especially those based in the West. Such movements are also flush with money, partly from collections and donations and partly from illegal sources (drugs trafficking, smuggling) or preferential aid and commerce (handouts from official state ministries, supplementation of mosque properties into shopping centres, etc). Hence a roots-first approach must incorporate a more meaningful and effective bricks-and-mortar philosophy.
In Pakistan this would mean that the ministry of religious affairs should stop handing out money to mullahs and madrassahs and mosques pending a thorough regulatory accountability of these institutions for purposes of enlightened reform. It would mean that official Zakat and Baitul Mal funds should be distributed through the aegis of only those institutions that have passed the rigorous test of moderation. It would mean that illegally constructed or amended mosque structures should meet the same fate as other illegal non-religious constructions. It would mean strict audits of religious institutions registered as charities or trusts and quick prosecutions in the event of breaking the law. It would lead to a visible crackdown on criminal authors, printers, publishers and distributors of material subverting the philosophy of ‘enlightened moderation’. It would provoke the swift incarceration of inflammatory religious ideologues during mosque sermons. But most importantly, this would mean the state itself will have to get out of the business of legislating on the basis of any particular exegesis of Islam. There is a spectrum of laws to deal with such issues. But the Pakistani state has perverted these laws to suit its strategic purposes in the past. It must now about-turn to accommodate the needs of ‘enlightened moderation’.
General Musharraf has done nothing so far on any of these accounts.
A roots-first approach must also incorporate a counter-attack on the pervasive state culture and politics that promote extremism and fanaticism. This culture is the result of daily injections of irrationality, rage and self-righteousness into the body politic of Muslim nations by their states in many different ways. In Saudi Arabia it was part of a Faustian bargain in which the House of Saud exchanged control of religion, education and culture with the Wahhabi establishment for state power and Saudi Arabia’s fabulous oil wealth. In Pakistan, the military’s Faustian bargain involved exchanging control of religion, education and culture with the mullahs for their support to the state’s ‘regional’ objectives as well as to the army’s requirement of blocking the development of a democratic, accountable and representative political system in which civilian supremacy is the norm rather than the exception. What has General Musharraf done to reverse these trends in the cause of ‘enlightened moderation’?
Little. General Musharraf has reined in the jihadis. But he has made no move to disband them. General Musharraf has abandoned the Taliban in Afghanistan. But he has not cracked down on them in Pakistan. More significantly, General Musharraf is still putting his faith in a rotten political alliance with the mullahs instead of the anti-mullah mainstream parties and leaders who are natural political votaries of ‘enlightened moderation’.
General Pervez Musharraf’s failure to practice the politics of ‘enlightened moderation’ is based on his personal need to remain in power at all costs and the military’s insistence on ruling and running Pakistan at all times. Both personal and institutional interests are therefore in antagonistic contradiction with the requirements of ‘enlightened moderation’. Indeed, a necessary condition for enlightened moderation in Pakistan is that the military should concede political supremacy to the civilians and the author of enlightened moderation, General Musharraf, should become the vehicle for concluding such a national Compact.