|
Editorial
From Hama to Andijon - is
dialogue with Islamists an impossibility?
Ammar Abdulhamid
May 30, 2005
Is dialogue with political
Islam truly an impossible and futile undertaking as many “secular”
regimes in the Region assert? Or does the real problem lie in the fact
that authoritarian and corrupt regimes are simply unwilling to dialogue
with anybody, regardless of their political affiliations?
Moreover, can such a dialogue take place between
representatives of secular movements and Islamist ones?
The answers to these questions may not be easy, but as political Islam
imposes itself on the regional scene once more, and as regimes and
governments continue to deal with it through crackdown and oppressive
tactics, ranging from mass arrests, as is the case in Egypt, to mass
murder, as was the case recently in Uzbekistan in the town of Andijon,
finding suitable answers should be a priority concern for all actors
interested in the future of the Region.
One thing should be clear though, crackdowns have been tried repeatedly
before, but the Islamist current keeps on reemerging having gained more
strength, more mass appeal and a greater measure of political
sophistication. Indeed, there are many recent incidents where Islamist
organizations proved to be more sophisticated in their tactics and
approach than their secular counterparts, not to mention the regimes
involved.
In other words, despite the fact that crackdowns continue to be the
approach most favored by regimes, with occasional backing from some
secular forces, they have so far proven worthless, if not downright
counterproductive.
As such, dialogue might just be the key. In truth, it hasn’t really been
attempted before. But this attitude might be changing as we speak.
Already in Egypt, a number of secular movements and figures have begun
dialoguing with the long-troubling and controversial Muslim Brotherhood.
Though, it’s too early at this stage to tell whether the results are
indeed encouraging, the two sides have so far been able to work together
in their opposition of President Mubarak, a struggle that is bound to
continue into the near future.
Meanwhile in Syria, an attempt by the independent secular salon known as
the Atassy Forum to indirectly include the Muslim Brotherhood’s
perspective in ongoing talks on the future of reform in Syria was met
with a government crackdown. Indeed the government detained all eight
members of the Forum’s Administrative Board for a period of four days in
a well-established pattern of intimidation.
For despite the fact that it was Syrian officials who first spoke of the
possibility and that the Atassy Forum was simply following their lead in
this regard, it seems that the Syrian regime felt threatened by the
possibility of an independent secular-Islamist opposition alliance.
Furthermore, the regime has a rather bitter history with the Brotherhood
culminating in the infamous 1982 uprising in Hama.
Therefore, and rather than coming out as a demonstration of regime
strength, as had been the intention, the move came out as a further
demonstration of its weakness of resolve and continuing with regard to
its dealings with the civil society and its increasing show of defiance.
The possibility of dialogue and cooperation between the secular and
Islamist elements in Syria, then, remains open.
As the Region stands at a very dramatic and crucial crossroads in its
modern history, dialogue between secular and Islamist currents is
becoming more and more of a necessity, for no one side seems to have all
answers to the Region’s problems and ongoing identity crisis.
|
