|
|
| May 04, 2007 | Friday | Rabi-us-Sani 16, 1428 |
New look at press freedom
A question of priority
Universality of Islam
Together in government
THE world has seen a large variety of religions, beliefs and doctrines wherein some were Divine revealed to the Prophets through Holy Books. Islam is the last of these religions and was revealed by Allah to the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) through the Quran.
IN 1971 I was a 20-year-old postman on strike. That strike lasted seven weeks and sparked my involvement with trade unions. But more than that, the experience of solidarity in the workplace moulded my political philosophy. Soon afterwards, unencumbered by any formal study of politics, I joined the Labour party, and ever since I have seen the link between party and unions as essential.
THE Turks, who are faced with a constitutional crisis, have adopted the most obvious option. They have advanced their general elections, originally scheduled for November, to July 22. After the constitutional court annulled last Friday’s parliamentary vote for the ruling Islamist party’s presidential candidate, the country is bitterly polarised. The fact is that democracy in Turkey has never had an easy sailing. With the army for ever waiting in the wings, the political system has always remained under threat. Having intervened in politics four times since 1980, the army has not inspired much confidence about its staying out of politics. There is also the wide gulf between secular and Islamic opinions in the country that seems to be growing. The system of allowing only those parties to gain entry into parliament that win at least 10 per cent of the votes enabled the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) to gain more seats in parliament than warranted by the ratio of its votes in the 2002 elections. Although it could muster less than 35 per cent of the votes, the AKP holds 363 seats in the 550-member house. The party prospects for the July election are uncertain, given the volatility of the Turkish voters who have a propensity to swing sharply from one party to another.
To societies where religious parties have adopted extremist agendas and have not inspired much public confidence in their tolerance level and ability to compromise, Turkey’s Islamists present a moderate image willing to play by the rules of the game. What appears to be a paradox to our brand of Islamist parties is the AKP’s public stance of supporting the secular constitution of Turkey which is widely cherished as a legacy of Kamal Ataturk. Yet the nomination of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul for the presidency by the AKP prime minister set alarm bells ringing in Ankara. It was feared that a parliament controlled by the AKP and the party’s own member in the presidency could change the direction of the country’s politics away from the established tradition of separation of religion and state. After all, the Turkish president can veto laws and influence the selection of judges and the army chief. So, basically what is shaping up in Turkey is a confrontation between the secularists (supported by the army) and the Islamists. The pro-Left rally in Ankara on Tuesday clearly establishes the strength of the secularists as a force to reckon with. In this clash even issues such as the head gears of the wives of the AKP leaders have assumed explosive symbolism.
How this conflict is resolved will determine the future of Turkish democracy. The country faces a dilemma mainly because the Islamists are not trusted as is the case anywhere in the world. If the army steps in once again to save the secularist tradition, its democratic credentials will become suspect. If it allows the political process to take its own course, it may not succeed in keeping the religious parties out of power. An uncertain factor is the approach of the religious groups. Will they exercise restraint in their policies? The experience from other parts of the Islamic world has not been a very happy one. A religious party after seizing power invariably changes the very structure of power to ensure that it is not dislodged.
THE international press freedom day on May 3 focused on the freedom of the media in various countries of the world. In the absence of any objective criteria, it is difficult to assess in comparative terms press freedom on the international level. Thus Pakistan has been listed in the ‘Ten Backsliders’ by the Committee to Protect Journalists because press freedom is seen to have deteriorated in this country over the last five years. Does this mean that the situation was good five years ago and has worsened since then? By implication it also means that conditions in the remaining 170 or so countries is ideal. This highlights the pitfalls of this approach. It is advisable for journalists to look at the state of their own media and the extent of freedom it enjoys. Thanks to the struggle of their media people, Pakistanis have come a long way in winning a larger measure of freedom than in the days when journalists were whipped and newspapers shut down. But today there are other means of curbing the press. Journalists are brutally murdered or made to ‘disappear’. Which is more acceptable? The press is livelier today, these checks notwithstanding. This just shows that comparisons are often odious.
The struggle for press freedom should, therefore, be treated as an on-going process. The aim of journalists and human rights activists should be to remain vigilant and to react promptly when curbs are imposed on the media. Another issue directly related to press freedom which is hardly ever discussed is that of the impact the media has on any given situation. We know that quite often bold and incisive reporting, exposure and comments in the press have failed to move the authorities to act. They have brazenly continued to do what they wanted to do without paying attention to what is being said. Even the corrupt, when they are exposed, refuse to be deterred. Evidently, in the absence of strong and stable institutions of democracy, such as an independent judiciary, a sensitive and conscientious parliament and an in-built process of accountability, the powers that be can choose to turn a blind eye to the media. This is something that is really worrisome.
IT IS unfortunate that while women MPAs of the Jamaat-i-Islami in the NWFP have always raised valid questions regarding women’s problems, they have never pressed them into concrete action. Instead, they have tried to push forward laws that do not address women’s real needs. For example, last month a bill was put forward that would curb discrimination against women wearing the hijab. It is hard to understand why this bill was tabled at a time when there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed, particularly in the interest of women who do not have access to basic facilities and services. The same is true of another bill which seeks to ban publication of images of women victims of violence. New on the agenda is a bill that would ban using female models in advertisements. This again reflects their misplaced priorities. Where are the bills on the issues the MPAs discussed at a meeting with the press on Monday? These included having more female ministers in the government, a five per cent quota in government jobs, free higher education for victims of the 2005 earthquake and more women technicians in hospitals. All these are valid demands and deserve to be passed into laws.
While one appreciates efforts aimed at reducing gender discrimination, these leaders need to realise that women are at risk in very many ways. It is the MMA government that disallows women being treated by male doctors and as a result, women are dying of illnesses that could have easily been treated. This government has not done anything to restrain obscurantists who do not want girls to get educated or their women to vote. It is issues like these that need to be addressed by female parliamentarians and not trivial matters to be ignored.
One of the chief attributes of Islam is its universality i.e. it is for the entire mankind: “And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists).” (21: 107); “And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most of men know not.” (34: 28)
Mankind has been directly addressed in the Holy Quran at quite a few places: “O mankind, Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgment) is a terrible thing.” (22: 01) “O Mankind! Verily, the Promise of Allah is true. So let not this present life deceive you, and let not the chief deceiver (Satan) deceive you about Allah.” (35: 05) “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another.” (49: 13).
Islam has continued to maintain its universal nature by laying down only those broader principles in the Quran which being fundamental in nature cannot go obsolete with time. Details have been laid down through the sunnah of the Prophet, and keeping in view the needs of changing times, ijtihad or reasoning has been introduced, whereby new principles can be formulated to suit new situations provided
the same do not contravene the fundamentals of Islam which have been laid down in the Holy Book.
Islam emerged in Saudi Arabia and the Holy Quran was revealed in Arabic but later it spread far and wide. The names of the chapters in the Quran do not always have Arabic origin or reference, for that matter and this further serves to prove the universality of Islam. Chapters have been named after Noah, Joseph, Luqman and also The Romans.The narrations in the Quran throw light on the bygone days of nations and civilizations and the disputes, miseries and dangers which plagued the same. It describes the lot of the helpless poor who were often at the mercy of the rich who were cruel and indifferent to the sufferings of the oppressed. It reveals the conflict between good and evil, monotheism and polytheism i.e. shirk.
The Holy Prophet has been granted the status of the last prophet of Allah. The process of divine revelation has been concluded with the Holy Prophet who has been sent as a guide for all men: “This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen Islam as religion for you.” (5: 03) “Obey Allah and obey the prophet, but if you turn away, he (Messenger Muhammad) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allah’s Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance…” (24: 54). See also (21: 107), (34: 28).
Earlier, different prophets brought different messages for their people. Owing to the prevailing conditions, the Divine message could be given to only a particular set of people in a given time.
Revelation stands perfected through Islam. In fact, earlier scriptures have made due reference to the advent of the Prophet of Islam; in the Bible, Jesus had said: ‘I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now…He will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but of whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak’ (John 16: 12-13).
Further, the New Testament affirms the above: ‘Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began’ (Acts, 3: 21).
The Holy Quran has itself confirmed the same; “And (remember) when Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: “O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you, confirming the Taurat [(Torah) which came] before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed. But when he (Ahmed, i.e. Muhammad) came to them with clear proofs, they said: ‘This is plain magic’.” (61: 06)
The Prophet of Islam has propagated a religion meant for all people irrespective of geographical or racial differences. Thus Islam does not differentiate on the basis of class, colour or creed. The Holy Prophet once said, “No one is superior to another except in point of faith and piety. All men are descended from Adam and Adam was made of clay.”
Further, the teachings of Islam are not difficult to follow by any man and it has been so perfected as to create ease for people; “Allah intends for you ease, and He does not want to make things difficult for you.” (2: 185); “Allah burdens not a person beyond his scope.” (2: 286)
Universality of Islam has been further avowed by laying down that sovereignty belongs to God: “Blessed is He in Whose hand is the Sovereignty, and He is Possessor of power over all things.” (67: 01); “…He is Allah, (the) One. [Allah- the Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, (He neither eats nor drinks)]. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.” (112: 1-4); “To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. He creates what he wills...” (42: 49) “The Only Owner (and the Only Ruling Judge) of the Day of Recompense (i.e. the Day of Resurrection).” (1: 04)
The basic principle of Islam is that all human beings must, both individually and collectively, submit to the will of Allah: “He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” (12: 40) The sovereignty exercised by the rulers on earth is a sacred trust bestowed on them by God: “Then We appointed you viceroys in the land after them that We might see how you behave.” (10: 14)
“…Seek help in Allah and be patient. Verily, the earth is Allah’s. He gives it as a heritage to whom He wills of his Slaves; and the (blessed) end is for the Muttaqun (the pious)” (7: 128); “And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: “Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth….” (2: 30);
Islam wishes to bring in its fold all people, regardless of social status or colour of the skin and further aims to unite all of mankind; it seeks to remove all differences of caste and creed created by various man-made social systems and customs.
A decade later, I was on the national executive of my union, watching Labour's selfdestruction. That had a lasting effect. Eighteen years out of power changed our movement forever.
Before Margaret Thatcher, unions opposed every interference with free collective bargaining. We weren't just opposed to the European social model, we were opposed to Europe.
We banked everything on legal immunity for trade unions and the concept that workers' rights came with their union cards.
The notion that Labour was in the pocket of the unions, or vice versa, did damage to both. When Labour left office in 1979 it was in favour of secondary action, but against the minimum wage. By 1997 the position had reversed, and 10 years later we can see the benefits: for workers, a series of new rights — many of which I introduced — covering pay, holidays, grievance procedures, maternity leave, protection for short-term contractors and redress against all shades of discrimination. We have provided rights at work, but also the jobs in which these rights can be enjoyed.
Unions collectively enjoy new recognition rights, protection for strikers, a ban on blacklisting union activists and partnership over the minimum wage, pensions and skills.
The healthy links with unions should be celebrated. Trade unionists have always presented a united front against racism. During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, theirs was the only non-sectarian voice consistently condemning the violence.
Today they champion the rights of EU migrant workers when the easier option would be to attack them.
Unions play a big role in everything from pensions to skills to work-life balance and the impact of globalisation. Climate change and the environment are now so important that unions should have a role there as well. For example, the legal responsibilities of health and safety representatives could be extended to cover environmental protection as well.
The unions' link with Labour should be strengthened, not weakened. We need a constitutional and physical connection between constituency parties and local union branches.
Any reform of the vote at conference should be accompanied by an increase in union representation on the party's national policy forum to one-third, and development of a mechanism to unite around positive policies for the future.
A fresh impetus to the relationship works both ways — union leaders must do their bit too. The Tories are a real threat for the first time in years.
They may seek to hug hoodies, but they remain the only mainstream centre-right party in Europe hostile to independent trade unionism. Cameron hasn't revealed many policies, yet he has pledged to withdraw from the EU social chapter, legislate against the Labour-union link and re-open the pensions settlement I brokered, and which protected the pensions of 3 million teachers, nurses and civil servants. Union leaders must recognise that there is no longer a soft option of Labour in power but disunited.
Unions should not be made to feel like embarrassing elderly relatives, and Labour ministers shouldn't be made to feel like recalcitrant mill owners.
There is so much more we can do together in government, rather than separately in opposition.
The writer, an MP, is the education secretary in Britain and a candidate for the Labour party deputy leadership.