East West and Democracy
Internal balance and the “micro-Cold War” with Teheran
The alliance between Washington and Riyadh is the pillar of traditional regional balance. Still today the superpower continues to need Saudi Arabia. In exchange, the house of Saud ensures its own political stability without any minority being "used" (as instead happens in Iran or in Syria) or any “human rights” campaign being unleashed by friendly media (as is happening now for Tibet used as in anti-Chinese role) so as to try and make King Abdallah’s throne totter. The internal situation is apparently even more reassuring. Confronting Iran does not however mean that Saudi Arabia is prepared to go to war. According to Riyadh, tough and belligerent words must be alternated with willingness to talk.
“This is why the world is rooting for Obama”
Charles Kupchan is a member of the Council on foreign relations in Washington and international relations professor at Georgetown University. He was for a long time Bill Clinton’s adviser, but today, recognising the fact that there are not substantial differences between Hillary and Barack Obama, as far as politics is concerned, says that Obama could have more to give the world. His election could in fact offer the United States a new “multicultural and multiethnic” image, just as “the globalization and migration are causing concern on multiethnicity and its social cohesion”. Thanks also to his background, Obama would represent a radical change to the Bush years, more than Hillary could.
Laicity in the era of identities
The “reconciliation” in the seventies of Catholics and laics constituted the last word on a long and tormented journey, deeply scarred by the peculiarity of Italian history. Today, however, a different feeling prevails surrounding the idea of laicity. On the one hand, it seems that laicity and religion are growing apart. On the other hand, the connection between laicity and the State seems less clear and less direct. The clash between “clericals” and “anti-clericals”, even in its different forms it takes on each time, always reveals a weakness in the arguments on both sides and, more on the whole, a weakness in the principle of laicity.
The Indian Model: a Challenge for the Muslim World
For the founding fathers of contemporary India, secularism did not mean practicing irreligious atheism. On the contrary, it meant an exercise in peaceful coexistence among faiths. The challenge is not to abandon secularism, but to formulate it as a philosophy with spiritual values, rather than solely a policy of the state. This the only way of rethinking our whole approach to the future in Muslim societies to the extent that we can allow the pluralist model of a “shared home” to present itself as “a third way” solution to the crisis of political societies in the Middle East and in opposition to the secular authoritarianism of the state and the rise of religious fundamentalism in the civil society.
Three meanings of secularism
A first meaning of secularism refers to the fact that the exercise of legitimate state power takes place in secular terms. A second meaning of secularism refers instead to social, rather than political, phenomena. In this second sense secularism concerns the fact that religious communities in modern societies cease influencing law, politics, education and public life in general. To sum up Charles Taylor’s long argument, secularism in its third sense “consists, among other things, of a move from a society where belief in God is unchallenged and indeed unproblematic to one in which it is understood to be one option among others, and frequently not the easiest to embrace”.
A century and its derivates in need of resetting
Learning today how to cope with translating the words describing “multiple laicities”, or relations between denominations, institutions and societies within different contexts, is the preliminary contribution one can offer to the cause of good relations between different cultures. Those who speak of a special effort to be invested in the immense work of translation needed by our societies are right, also because many of the options available claim the right to be heard more clearly. The principle of this world can only be that of equal respect between denominations and options in liberal organisations. Equal respect that must inspire the treatment of both religious and non-religious positions.
A people hungry for democracy
What will become of Pakistan and its dream of democracy it has come so close to? Of its redemption after decades of coups d’état? Musharraf had started his last mandate with good resolutions, but now he wants to forbid the middle classes from becoming a political figure; a middle class which is moving forwards, a new bourgeoisie in a country divided between rich and poor, where flour has disappeared from its markets and whose price has reached 400% more on the black market. The Pakistani people is full of electoral rigging. The Pakistani community from Italy is asking for the presence of international observers to ward off such rigging.
A sea of incomprehension
The difficult dialogue between Arato and Hanafi soon escalated into a heated political debate; and the Truth that the participants were hoping to find revealed itself to be relative, conditioned and dependent upon situation. What intellectuals like Hanafi and Arato can do is reject the logic of friend/enemy, and recognise that democracy as a universal ideal can be understood only as the capacity of men to control their life within society through communicative reason and public institutions.
Islam and the West – a difference in vision
Liberal democracy is only one kind of democratic forms, not all kinds. It is not a magic-key which opens all the secrets of the world – Hassan Hanafi writes – The Islamic concept of democracy is something else. It is not a quantitative concept, majority-minority, power and opposition but a qualitative concept based on the right of every person to express himself freely. No one has the right to monopolize the truth and imposes his view on others. The right to differ is a legitimate right, a religious duty. Islamic political regime is not a theocracy. God rules neither in person nor through his so-called representative. No one on earth has the right to represent God. The Ruler in Islam, the Imam, is freely elected by the people. The real ruler is not the executive power but the legislative power.
America is not the paragon of democracy
Why accept the claim that America is the paragon of democracy? Here I agree with you, but this is not a point against liberal democracy. My suggestion was that we treat democracy as a two levelled concept, a normative critical one, and an empirical one – Andrew Arato writes – The latter Dahl called polyarchy, and Israel and the U.S. are polyarchies (while Egypt is not). I do not think one can reject multi-party competitive democracy and still have modern democracy, and I do not agree that to argue for democracy today is or must be simply an instrument to destroy the weak states that stand in the way of neo-liberalism or American empire. Dictatorships remain unacceptable on too many grounds to use this as a defense against indigenous democratic efforts that should be supported.
We don't need Western models
Democracy can be rejected only by a crazy, and I am not. The difference is: what does democracy mean and in what form? It means for me the right to differ, to dissent and to oppose against monopoly of thinking and decision – Hassan Hanafi writes – I mean consultation, Shura. The target is one, against dictatorship, despotism and authoritarianism. Therefore, the right of differs, in and out, is in every culture. America is taken as the model of democracy but it practices the most horrible State terrorism against States and their citizens. Indeed, democracy is a real need in Third World. Democratic reform and democratization of traditional societies do not occur by imposing Western formal concept of democracy but by extracting the roots of dictatorship from the mass culture.
The only answer to the profound crisis of the Arab world
The Hanafi text is a symptom of what has happened: a discrediting of and increasing confusion about democracy. We have Bush, the neo-conservatives and the human rights hawks to thank for all this. Democracy is a European idea, a great idea. So I am sorry that Bush and his fellow travellers have confused you so – Andrew Arato writes – It remains most likely true that democracy is the only answer to the deep crisis of the Arab world, and now you are on the verge of rejecting it. And what will you have then? A nationalism that is already falling apart, or religious fundamentalisms destroying one another as in Iraq, or perhaps nationalists and the religious killing each other as in the Palestinian territories.
When democracy masks exploitation
Democracy is a tool not an end. In the West, it is a quantitative concept based on majority-minority criteria, but how many times the majority was wrong such as Nazism and Fascism? Democracy in the West is based on the concept of the individual and of citizenship. Other cultures are more oriented towards groups and communities, brotherhood and comradeship. Democracy as a multiparty system based on free election, one man one vote, is a formal concept. The differences between the parties may be minimal. Democrats and Republicans in USA share the same ideology of hegemony, invasion of Iraq and support of Israel. Democracy here is used as a tool to implement liberal economy and not as a value in itself. It is even as a comouflage, a cover-up to hid exploitation and hegemony.
Popular sovereignty and the Capitalist threat
The weakness of representative democracy with respect to the power structure of the capitalist economy has been well documented. The original problem of capitalism and democracy remains, only mildly diminished by the so-called democratic welfare state. With the problems of economic power and democracy unsolved, the whole issue has been generalized, globalized, and imperialized. Since the last wave of still largely indigenous democratic transformations, from Greece in the early 1970s to South Africa in the 1990s, it was always the same fundamental model of popular sovereignty and constitutional democracy that played a dominant role in democratization processes. This is the best normative response to the challenges of globalization and even empire, if only a first step.
“The elections will be rigged. Expect a big crisis”
“Musharraf is still here; he is still very much in power and absolutely nothing has been done about extremism. He wants to be re-elected in 2007 and he wants to remain in office until 2012”. It was in July 2005, after the terrorist bombings in London, that Ahmed Rashid, journalist and author of “Taliban”, a worldwide best-seller which was adapted into a course book at over 200 U.S. Universities, made these predictions. In more than three years nothing has changed in Pakistani politics and according to Rashid, nothing will vary if Musharraf does not step down. But the President has failed on one thing: the support of his people, the real foe to his ruling.
Berman is wrong, we should welcome Ramadan
The Berman-type position is both incredibly imperceptive and extremely dangerous. It ignores the incredible diversity of Islamic modes of devotion and spirituality. What we need is an alliance of people of all faiths and civilizations who will resist together this slide into polarization. The last thing we want to do is spread the myth that al believing Muslims are committed to something whose logical working out involves this form of jihad. That’s what Bin Laden is saying, but it’s false. Tariq Ramadan should be welcomed as a prime member of this alliance, not denied a Us visa.
Why we must learn to be self-critical
Dear Michael, you suggest a sort of division of labor between those who pursue a confrontational strategy and those who pursue a politics of dialogue or between warriors and intellectuals - writes Nadia Urbinati - a distinction that recalls that between Hobbes and Kant as opposite models of politics that Robert Kegan identified with USA and Europe respectively. I am not sure that this division of labor is a good solution. J.S. Mill used to say that a critical thinker should complicate a reality that believers tend instead to see as simple and one-dimensional (Manichean view). The conservative intellectuals who gave voice to the U.S. Administration and stressed an ideological dualism between USA and Europe, confrontation and dialogue, have done a bad service to their country and the world.
Dialogue or tough campaign? Maybe we need a division of labor
It appears that the Cold War analogy - Michael Walzer writes - is centrally important in our discussion. Without the Truman Doctrine in Greece, without the Korean War, without Radio Free Europe, Stalinist communism would have been a flourishing and probably expanding system, and the Italian CP would never have changed at all. Maybe there is an argument to be made for a division of labor. Some of us should be involved in a politics of dialogue, and some of us should be waging a tough ideological campaign (not against Islam as a block but) against jihadi zealotry. But if that is right, why are the Reset people so hostile to the tough campaign? I will continue to be skeptical about the value of cross-cultural exchange – not hostile, just skeptical.
The real enemy? Dogmatism
In Italy Berman is not an author of the Left, to the contrary, his ideas are shared by the editors and the readers of Il foglio, a right wing newspaper. Norberto Bobbio was one of the most interesting anti-anti-communists (different in this from Aron). Bobbio’s culture and practice of dialogue - Nadia Urbinati writes - did not simply question communists’ dogmatism, but dogmatism. You ask whether the culture of dialogue is of some use in our time and with the problem before us. I think it is of some use. The Manichean spirit of contraposition would have the perverse effect of stopping the process of political secularization or simply advancing the “internal criticism” in the Muslim world besides making our society less free and open.
Berman? Muslim dissidents appreciate his views
I don't exclude Islam from my view of multiculturalism, nor do any of my friends - Michael Walzer writes - There may be block thinking on the far right; I just don't find it among Dissent leftists. So we are not so far apart. But perhaps we have a different view of the value of dialogue. I worry that the dialogues that you propose will turn out to be a substitute for the hard work that both sides, but most importantly right now the Muslim side, have to do in their own communities. It really doesn't help the dissidents to dialogue with people like you and me. That's just rest and recreation. And let's not pretend that the people we are talking to are the Miloszs or the Solzhenitsyns of the Muslim world. I would be willing to bet that those people, if they exist, secretly admire the work of Paul Berman.
Why the Left must avoid 'block thinking'
The point of my argument - writes Nadia Urbinati - is precisely that not all Muslims are friendly to or supportive of terrorism, which means that some and perhaps many are. On the other hand, however, only if we drop a Manichean attitude or what Charles Taylor calls “block thinking” we can see or recognize our potential interlocutors within the Muslim world. The reference I made to the Cold War was to the climate of ideological contraposition it nurtured. Paul Berman says about Ramadan that he pretends to be an internal critic but avoids all opportunities to be critical. In our current debate, the anti-dialogue position is after all the most representative one, for sure in the right-wing people (who, in Italy, like very much Berman’s ideas, by the way) but also among leftist people.
Dear Nadia, here are the limits of dialogue
I opposed a war of liberation in Eastern Europe. I favored diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and China. But we did insist, all of us, that the Stalinist regime was guilty of mass murder, and we would not have shaken hands or joined in a sit-down dialogue with the murderers. Diplomats can shake hands with anybody; they always wear gloves. But leftist intellectuals should set limits on whom they talk to. I am sure that Nadia would recognize this requirement with regard to the Nazis; it applies also to Stalinists—and to Islamic zealots today. What should Western leftists be doing with regard to Islam today? We should defend leftist principles of democracy and equality on every possible occasion. I don’t see anything intolerant or Manichean in this political position.
Forget manichaeism: like Bobbio, I choose dialogue
In the debate over the identity of the Left, two positions have emerged: there are those who embrace liberal multiculturalism, but with one exception, Islam; and there are those who reject this exception because believe that we should articulate our judgement on the Islamic culture and think it is a mistake to regard it as a whole, as if it were a homogenous world. After September 11, many of those who at the time of the Cold War theorized and embraced a politics of intolerance toward the Communists tended to apply it to Islam. The European open-to-compromise attitude that is not tremendously afraid of cultural pluralism seems to be more difficult to be practiced in the United States. Positions such as those endorsed by Paul Berman (which I would define as one of Manichean Occidentalism) in addition to being reductionist and somehow deceptive is also politically dangerous since that it may unwillingly help the cause of Osama bin Laden’s extremism.
India has nothing to lose
India needs to read the writing on the wall - the Burmese military junta is on its way out. For those of us who value our democracy and human rights, India's policy on Burma should have changed a long time ago. India cannot aspire to be a proud democracy if it backs all kinds of dictatorships in the neighborhood. The double standards that we have learnt from the Americans, does not work in the long run. But those who govern India now don't share our values. They are the defenders of our national interests -- the smart diplomats, the tough generals, the men who run our chambers of commerce and push for more trade with Burma. It is time to take them on now and ask what India has gained by backing the world's most notoriously repressive military junta.
Now we need an alliance between clerics and secularists
Is the Moroccan Islamic party, the PJD, ready to govern? The common people see their identity as embodied in the King, the protector of the foundations of Islam. This might explain why a modern, democratic, moderate Islamic party like the PJD was unable to clench victory at the polls at its first attempt, five years ago – as was the case in neighbouring Algeria, and as would happen in other Islamic Arab countries from Jordan to Egypt. If they want to govern, however, the leaders of the PJD, survivors of a history of bitter conflicts and, sometimes even physical clashes with the universities' socialist and liberal movements in the 1970s and 1980s, must first of all free themselves of their anti-secular prejudice. And of their own arrogance.
“On the way to democracy, awaiting the EU”
“For the first time in the history of Morocco we have had a truly democratic ballot, which was genuinely transparent. This has been confirmed by international observers, and no one within the country has raised any objections.” The French-Moroccan writer Tahar Ben Jelloun sees the elections in a positive light, despite the low turnout: “Morocco is beginning to become a democracy.” The author of Partir (Gallimard 2005) and of various books dedicated to the Arab world, to immigration and to Islam (La nuit de l'erreur, Seuil 1997; Racism explained to my daughter, New Press) has no great faith in the PJD.
“Do you see? Opening up democracy to Islamic parties isn't dangerous”
According to Driss Lagrini, Professor of Politics at the University of Marakesh, there are analogies to be drawn between the PJD Islamic party (“which doesn't evoke any fear in Morocco”) and the AKP Turkish party which shares the same name in Turkish and which is currently in government in Ankara. “However,” he adds, “I don't think that we can extend the Turkish model to Arab nations, because there is no true democracy there, and because the political groups there have not yet reached maturity in the programmes that they propose.” Nevertheless, Lagrini highlights a positive point: “At any rate, the result obtained by the PJD disproves the claim that organising regular and transparent elections with the participation of Islamic parties throws open the door to power to Islamic fundamentalists – as happened in Algeria in 1991.”
“Three-way (German) dialogue on post-secularism”
According to Böckenförde the secularised State, even if strictly adhering to the principle of its citizens’ freedom, must be aware that it is not capable of creating full integration, because its «basic normative premises» are not linked to it. In fact they above all draw on pre-political and religious values. Habermas too admits that the good functioning of democracy requires pre-political resources, but the «unifying bond» (generating a shared ethos) should not be searched for before or outside the political-constitutional process itself. Believers, who should be free to express theirselves politically, have to renounce to claim the monopoly of truth.
“Falling back into the arms of Hegel
According to Böckenförde, a State where it is not necessary for a society which has differentiated itself to be made homogeneous again, reviving an ethical substance which under the fire of thought has become disjointed and less dangerous, uniting itself to citizens which are torn between taking care of the private and participating outside the confines, is a State which sees feelings of belonging dwindling, which can no longer be reproduced. But there is something lacking in this diagnosis. The plurality of the visions of the good, present in our society, is fruit of the free use of human reason in conditions of finiteness, not the fruit of the windmills of grains of sand which are not anchored.
“Neither State, nor Church, but democratic self-government”
Increasingly modern societies are culturally heterogeneous societies which do not provide the symbolic resource upon which to draw for creating a political community beyond the mere individual interests. This situation excludes a series of possible alternatives: a shared religion, a shared culture of belonging, a shared culture of being different. We can get out of this dilemma delegating the symbolic transcendence of a political community to a democratic sovereign. This option argues for a culture of debate which unites all those taking part in such debates into a self-regulating society which includes the controversial remembering of different traditions.
“Liberalism is not neutral, but this is its very strength”
Liberalism is not wholly neutral. But then, no political system is entirely neutral philosophically and ethically. Liberalism, nevertheless, can fairly claim to express an unusually, indeed uniquely accommodating configuration of values, within which it’s possible for many different religious and other conceptions of the good to coexist peacefully. This accommodation is not unlimited – there will be practices that liberalism cannot tolerate – but it’s the best we can do. It’s true that liberals try to prevent the state preaching particular, controversial moralities, especially religiously-based moralities. But that doesn’t mean that liberalism has no moral basis at all. On the contrary, the idea of human rights is an especially rich and inspiring moral doctrine.
“Homogeneity is not indispensable”
The idea of a totally secular society was always a fiction. Organized religion never went away and may become stronger, through Muslims, and perhaps even through evangelical Christianity. But I don’t think organized religion in most liberal democracies, with the possible exception of the United States, is playing a bigger role in the state. Secularism, or atheism, as an aggressive ideology can be as dangerous as any other dogmatic belief. Societies don’t have to be “homogeneous” for liberal democracy to thrive. Societies never were homogeneous. What is needed is a common agreement to abide by the laws. As long as this is so, liberal democracies are not in danger.
“Imposing homogeneity from above is a recipe for oppression”
Rather than loudly proclaiming that our political positions are based on the authority of one or another God, we should keep God out of the conversation, and seek to justify policies by advancing reasons that our fellow citizens can accept, independently of their particular religious commitments. The truth is that Enlightenment liberalism has never been as powerful a force in the world as it is today. Böckenförde is wrong to suggest that moral homogeneity can “guarantee” social cohesion in a modern society. Profound moral diversity is a fundamental fact of life – and the effort to impose homogeneity from above is a recipe for oppression, conflict, and social disintegration.
“It is impossible to separate religion and politics”
Someone once said that anyone who believes that politics and religion can be abstractly separated understands nothing of either politics or religion. There is a certain liberalism which is uniquely ‘special’ in understanding nothing of religion, but it ought to understand something of politics. Not only the liberal State, but the State as a structure tout court is an integral part of the general ‘destiny’ of secularisation. In no way, therefore, can it put forward the pretext of founding and constituting a hierarchy or absolute order of Values. Its laws can only ever have a positive and relative value. The relativity of values can become the foundation of an ethos of comparison, of dialogue and of reciprocal recognition.
“Accepting diversity, as far as possible”
Since it has existed Böckenförde’s dilemma is the existential dilemma of liberal democracy, which on one hand contradicts its principles if it does not guarantee the freedom also of those wishing to destroy it, and on the other cannot allow that this destruction be implemented. The management of this contradiction has however within the historical event found its own rules. The existential dilemma has historically been solved by reserving the highest level of guarantees to all those placed within the assent/dissent platform considered compatible with the survival of the whole and instead leaving in a far less defended limbo all dissent set outside this platform. We take great care not to be assimilationists or integrationists, and instead we try and outline pathways involving fecund contamination characterised by reciprocal acceptance.
“Political values are founded on notions of good”
If one means that society passed a phase of being secularized, and now religion is "returning", then this is quite wrong. In many respects, "religion" never really left. Its imprint on our culture is too great just to disappear. For instance, when it comes to admitting or not admitting Turkey to Europe, many "lay" people object: Turkey isn't "European". Why? Because it is not Christian. Simple notions of "Laïcité", à la française, which simply tried to marginalize religion, are no longer adequate to our situation. Böckenförde is undoubtedly right; there is a problem here. A plurality of voices may hold us back, but it will often be a salutary reminder of what we are too quick to forget.
Nilüfer Göle: "The walls are crumbling between Islam and secularism”
Europe’s influence, reform pressure and closeness have been important for Turkey’s opening and development to a powerful, modern state. Nilüfer Göle, the Istanbul sociologist, based at EHESS in Paris asks herself how important Europe is for Turkey today after the French refusal of EU membership. In the struggle to define the new not yet equilibrated public space of modern, secular and religious Turkey, women have been key players. Needless to say that the tension between the religious and the secular spheres are still tense, as recent events have shown, but an in-between-space is growing rapidly and walls have started crumbling. Street politics have proven the encouraging surpass of imposed military secularism to real democracy. In all this the veil as a symbol is changing meaning, from being a sign of stigma, backwardness and gender inequality to a sign of positive identity affirmation, such as “black is beautiful”, and of political activism, says Göle.
Seyla Benhabib: “There is more religion in politics in the U.S. than in Turkey”
“The AKP party and Abdullah Gul will not change Turkey into a theocracy”. Seyla Benhabib does not seem at all to be worried about a possible victory for the Islamic AKP party in the Turkish elections to be held on the 22nd July, and not even about the possibility that one of its main leaders, Abdullah Gul, may become the new President of Turkey: “They are carrying out an incredible experiment and it is unusual for someone who is a democratic socialist like myself to be supporting and to be watching very carefully a party like them”. Seyla Benhabib, philosopher and Professor of political science and philosophy at Yale, was born in Istanbul, Turkey. Among her books are The Claims of Culture (Princeton 2002) and The Rights of Others (Cambridge 2004).
“If the EU rejects us we will end up in the Middle East”
The 'Cyprus question', the relationship between government and military, negotiations with Brussels... Turkey is going through a crucial moment in its history in both domestic and foreign politics – and it is a process of which the European Union risks missing essential aspects which must be understood if the negotiations on Turkey's adhesion are to be smooth. This country, increasingly Euro-sceptical and currently in the midst of a full-blown political crisis, is making its way to the ballot box to elect the government which will conduct membership negotiations over the course of the next 5 years. Ferai Tinc, one of the best-known columnists of the Turkish daily Hurriyet, explains how Turkey is changing, and in which direction dialogue between the East and the West must evolve.
An interview by Marta Federica Ottaviani.
Erdogan’s strategies
This time all the bets are being played. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, 54 years old and originally from Rize, is intent on winning back the clear majority in Parliament, with which, from November 2002, he ruled the Country pratically without support from the other political forces. After five years in power, his Akp, the Party for Justice and Development, with a moderate Islamic stance, is leaving office, and with a policy which has given the best results especially in the economic and foreign sectors. The vote has been arranged for the 22nd July, a month after the one in May, marked by a deep political crisis and an open clash between laic and Islamic parts of the Country.
Beyond the Clash of Ignorance
As Europe celebrates the golden jubilee of the Treaty of Rome – the founding document of what is now the European Union – the crucial debate over the past, present and future identity of Europe shows no sign of slowing down. Remarkably, in certain political and intellectual circles, “Islam” is often recklessly affirmed as the antithesis against which Europe’s true identity is best defined. This is clearly seen in the opposition between the West and Islam theorised by Samuel Huntington in his “Clash of Civilizations”, and in the much publicised Regensburg speech where Benedict XVI depicts a cartoon-like mythical Islam, bloodthirsty and inherently irrational. But another vision is possible.
“Let Tariq Ramadan speak”
Over the past few months a heated debate, spread across the pages of the international press and of the website Signandsight.com, has raised the following question: Should the West support moderate yet controversial Muslims such as Tariq Ramadan, the popular grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brothers, or Islamic dissidents such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who for years has spoken out against crimes committed on women in the name of Islam, and who wrote the screenplay of Theo Van Gogh's provocative film Submission? The two intellectuals know and cannot stand each other. And yet today, while the Italian right once again attacks Ramadan, who is still banned from the U.S., the ex-Somalian refugee here defends his right to freedom of speech, even if she claims to be completely opposed to his thinking.
Ian Buruma, Euroislam and the Enlightenment fundamentlists
In his latest book, the Dutch intellectual Ian Buruma raised certain objections regarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali refugee and writer of the controversial Theo Van Gogh film Submission. Timothy Garton Ash agreed, questioning to what extent this young woman’s success has been due to her physical beauty, and defining her as an ‘Enlightenment fundamentalist’ – statements which have sparked controversy around the world, with the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner arguing in defence of Hirsi Ali. Insults and personal attacks aside, the debate has brought to the fore a fundamental question: what role can and should the Islamic religion have in the future of Europe? An article by Daniele Castellani Perelli.
Only the dialogue of cultures can save Russia
The natural desire of Russia to play a leading role on the international arena presupposes the ability of the country's representatives to engage in dialogues with others. If the country wants to have good relations with others, to have partners and, moreover, allies, it is not only military power and high economic competitiveness that should be relied upon – writes Marietta Stepanyants, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences – Dialogue of cultures is necessary for Russia for solving her internal problems, too. The people of Russia have to acquire a new collective identity in place of the former and lost collective identity known as "Soviet people".
Cosmetic reforms and the opposition’s tremors
Egyptian society is filled with tremors and rebellion. But even if in the 2005 elections it straight away had a clear rest, the National democratic party can still sleep well at night. The constitutional amendments reinforce the exclusion of religious parties, and confirm the regime’s authoritarian nature – writes Massimo Campanini, professor at the Oriental University in Naples and also author of History of the Middle East (Il Mulino 2006) and History of contemporary Egypt (Edizioni Lavoro 2005) – Nevertheless, the level of the freedom of the press is still significant, the magistrature independent, and society alive and open.
On Reason
Extracting general rulings from the heart of “absolute, a-historical reason” and considering them applicable to all people in all ages has become more difficult today. Humanity has now arrived at a healthy and beneficial pluralism and relativism, the fruit of which is modesty and the rejection of dogmatism – writes the great Iranian philosopher Abdolkarim Soroush, currently Isim Visiting Professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam – Of the three-fold rivals of reason (revelation, love, and revolution) it is the third that is the most merciless. When faced with all-embracing revolutions, which have neither love’s beauty nor revelation’s sanctity, we can only seek refuge in God. For, they rob people of both life and reason.
“Intellectuals like Hirsi Ali play into the mullahs’ hands”
Those who maintain that Islam is not compatible with democracy and the respect of women’s rights, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Somali refugee, now resident in the US, and writer of the Theo Van Gogh film Submission “simply give justification to non-democratic Islamic governments”. So says Shirin Ebadi, Iranian lawyer and 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, who, on a visit to Italy, and following the arrest of 32 demonstrators in Tehran on the 4th March, has called for Italian feminists to help Iranian women (“Helping women to assert their rights is the best system for helping democracy to assert itself”).
Human Rights, the Need of an Intercultural Dialogue
Existing human rights cannot be taken for granted. The model of a “pluralist integration from below” can reconcile cultural sensitivity to local traditions and the universality of human rights – writes Sebastiano Maffettone, Professor of Political Philosophy at Luiss-Guido Carli University in Rome, Italy – Intercultural dialogue succeeds in reconciling the philosophical aspect (justification) and the empirical aspect (legitimation) of the human rights issue. The involvement of a variety of persons coming from different cultures may obviate in part the Western-oriented parochialism of human rights.
The Risk of Starting a War by Accident
He has no tender words for the Bush administration. Gary Sick, a former National Security Council adviser on Iran during the Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan administrations, was the senior advisor at the White House during the 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis. In this interview he identifies “provocations”; actions such as the arrest of Iranian nationals in Iraq by U.S. forces, and admits he fears: “a real possibility here of a war starting almost by accident. I really do worry about that, and I see Iraq as a sort of trigger point for a war”. According to Sick, who teaches at Columbia University, Bush was wrong to insert Iran in the “Axis of Evil”, and he is wrong today not to adopt the Baker Report’s proposals.
An interview by Daniele Castellani Perelli.
“Religion? In our Dialogue it is not so Important”
“In Egyptian society, increasingly we see an interaction between the secular and liberal point of view and the religious one, especially after the success of about 88 members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian parliament. That is why I think that secularism and religion are not very important in this dialogue among cultures – says Sayed Yassin, former director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies and professor of political sociology at the National Center for Social and Criminological Research in Cairo – The holocaust? It is an historical fact. But how can a free country claim complete freedom of expression when it issues a criminal legislation which penalizes anyone who discusses the Holocaust?”.
The “backbone” of intercultural dialogue
Every act of understanding, as the necessary condition of its possibility, presupposes in the individual an analogue of what is to be later understood. In other words, understanding is impossible without having at least something in common. Starting a dialogue, it is not realistic to aim at the uniformity in understanding the meaning of human existence and the norms of human behaviour. In the meantime it is imperative to exert efforts in order to work out common approaches to the issues of world order, the issues which determine the fate of mankind. There is a tradition from the prophet of Islam that says: “We are all travelers on a ship; if one person pokes a hole in it, all of us drown”.
Erevan, Ankara, Brussels: a Necessary Dialogue
It is essential for Turkey, and in her political, economic and general interest, to ensure that the issue of the Armenian genocide is, once and for all, consigned to history. The importance that Europe attributes to the Caucasus region further increases the need to normalize relations with Armenia. The principle problem facing the government in Erevan on the international stage is the contention of the Nagorno-Karabakh region with Azerbaijan. Together with the EU, Ankara has the potential to play an important role in the search for a solution to the crisis, but, at present, its borders with Armenia remain closed, leading to serious economic repercussions for the Armenians.
Vulnerability as a Strength
A moral subject who accepts the impossibility neither to know himself nor to tell, clarifies his true identity. But who finds out an unexpected strength, which makes him able to act ethically and contrast violence and power abuses. “Know yourself”: this was, for Socrates, the most important moral imperative, which has crossed Western history, from Agostino’s introspection to contemporary psychoanalysis. But what if the Socratic injunction was a mistake? If the research of total transparency of our identity, and the desire to tell it in an exhaustive and coherent way, was an unattainable and undesirable utopia?
The West Blinded by the Ideology of Secularization
The religious quest which we perceive as being revived has always been there in Western societies. We have overlooked this basic fact because we have been blinded by the ideology of secularization. In order to correct this blindness, Jürgen Habermas has adopted the term post-secular society and John Rawls has coined the term political liberalism. Rawls also warns us against confusing “public reason” and “secular reason”. Being religiously neutral but not militantly secularist, public reason therefore appears as equidistant from all forms of reasoning. Its internal standard is “reasonableness” – writes Alessandro Ferrara, Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Rome Tor Vergata – the capacity to acknowledge the fact of pluralism.
Open Society and the Challenge of a Religious Revival
The differences are under our noses and we should not be afraid to face them. There are, for example, controversial words which have the power to ignite discord. One such word is “secularism”, or “laity”. How can we answer back to the religious world which claims to have a big influence in public life? What difficulties would result from the hypertrophy of the religious phenomenon in various Countries in the world; from immigration in Europe following various diasporas, to traditional European communities, and to the USA?
There is no Opposition Between Secularism and Islam
“It seems today that the acceptance of secularism within the Muslim world is extremely far away. It is as if, on the basis of deeply-held convictions, Muslim society were demanding a form of not exactly theocracy, but certainly a ‘moralisation’ of public life.” So says Abdou Filali-Ansary, director of the Institute for the Study of Muslim Civilisations at the university of Aga Khan, London. The director and founder of the Moroccan literary review ‘Prologues’, he is also the author of a number of works on the reformist tradition within the Islamic world, including L’Islam est-il hostile à la laïcité? (2002) and Réformer l’Islam? - Une introduction aux débats contemporains (2003).
Islam and Democracy: A Third Way
Those who say that democracy is incompatible with the Islamic religion have basically argued that democracy transfers to people the sovereignty of God. Another formulation is that democracy and Islam are incompatible and that Islam has to retreat into a purely private room. Is there possibly a third way? Yes, there is. It is in civil society that religion must be given its freedom to speak and its ability to express itself. The speech given in Rabat by professor Fred Dallmayr, who teaches political philosophy and international studies at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana). His latest books are Dialogue among civilizations (2002), and Small wonder: global power and its discontents (2005).
Geopolitical interests in the African ‘bush’
“On the one hand Ethiopia has striven in recent years to prove itself the most loyal, most believable and most militarily efficient of the United States’ allies. On the other, Saudi Arabia and Egypt cannot lose contact with the Islamic forces within the region. It is difficult to speak of legality in the Horn of Africa, and in today’s world”. This is the comment of Giampaolo Calchi Novati, one of Italy’s most respected experts on African affairs, on the conflict in Somalia.
“Why the American intervention is deeply risky”
Those who portray it as a clash of civilizations only want to serve propagandist aims and their own interests, because the Somali conflict “has much more to do with geopolitics than it has to do with religion or civilizations”. In this interview, Ken Menkhaus, associate professor of political science at Davidson College (North Carolina) and a former special advisor to the U.N. operation in Somalia, argues that the American involvement in Somalia is deeply risky: “as it now directly links the U.S. with the Ethiopian intervention. Somalis are going to hold the U.S. directly responsible for the long-term impact of this intervention if it goes badly.
"The most anti-islamic Country in the World
“The comeback of Confucianism aims at inverting the present tendency to turn inward to the private sphere and at filling the void left by the end of Maoism.” What Italy knows about China, it owes to Federico Rampini, who was previously correspondent from Paris, Brussels and San Francisco and is now reporting for “La Repubblica” from Beijing. He is also the author of many books (“The Chinese Century”, “The Chindia Empire” and “Mao’s Shadow”, edited by Mondadori). In this interview he explains how “There is no other country as 'anti-Islamic' as China".
Marx in China: Modern Art, Modern Conflicts, Modern Workers
Today’s Chinese government seems as adamant as yesterday’s in keeping closed the doors to democracy and human rights. But it has been brilliantly successful in opening up the nation’s economy and in enabling China to participate in global economic life: in the last decade, China’s economy has become the most dynamic in the world. It is only now, then, as China goes through dramatic and explosive development, that Marx’s discourse of contradiction can be a powerful critical vision of its real life. It is ironic, on the contrary, that, for decades, a travesty of Marxism was imposed on a backward, peasant China that couldn’t possibly digest it.
“Globalization brought Individualism and Cosmopolitanism”
“The Chinese civilization has become more outward-looking, materialistic, and individualistic. This is the result of China’s integration into the global system and the influence of market economics, which emphasizes individualism, materialism, and cosmopolitanism.” Minxin Pei is a senior associate and director of the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC. He doesn’t think that China poses a threat to the West: “China’s success will be a great asset to the West.” An interview by Daniele Castellani Perelli.
Philosophy in Theater, Dec 1st, with Ezio Mauro and Timothy Garton Ash
On 1st December, Teatro Eliseo in Rome will host the second meeting of the series "Words of Dialogue". Oxford historian, political writer and Guardian columnist Timothy Garton Ash will explain the word "Liberty", while La Repubblica Editor-in-chief Ezio Mauro will talk about the word "Stereotypes". Algerian writer Amara Lakhous and videortists Ursula Biemann, Gianluca and Massimiliano De Serio will also take part to the meeting, conducted by Giancarlo Bosetti.
Philosophy in Theater, 24th Nov, Presentation of our Website
On November 24, 2006, our website will be officially inaugurated at the Teatro Eliseo in Rome. Two renowned Muslim philosophers - reformers and secularists - will discuss Islam, secularism, and humanism. Mohammed Arkoun, an Algerian living in France, will consider the word “humanism,” and Abdulkarim Soroush of Iran will speak about “reason.” The other speakers include Giuliano Amato, Minister of the Interior of Italy, Giancarlo Bosetti, Renzo Guolo, and Nadia Urbinati.
The Reasons of a Lexicon
The Lexicon of Reset DoC will raise questions and facilitate answers for all who work in the fields of society that are more sensitive to the issue. We will focus on all aspects of social life and intellectual debate involved in the dimension of the relation with the difference, with a particular focus on the capability of thought to build bridges toward dimensions different from the Self, to overcome distance, barriers, and conflicts, to conceive the solution in difficult conditions, to defeat fanaticism, to manage resentment and the way out of chronic war situations.
Unesco Philosophy Day, Reset Dialogues in Morocco
In 2002 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) established World Philosophy Day, which had its fifth celebration this year. Morocco hosted the event in Rabat on November 15-18, and ResetDoC presented a round table called "Religious Revival and Open Society." Its participants included Minister Giuliano Amato and the intellectuals Sadik Al-Azm, Abdou Filali-Ansary, Fred Dallmayr, Giancarlo Bosetti, Alessandro Ferrara, Sebastiano Maffettone, and Nina zu Fürstenberg.
Dialogue against a Unipolar World
Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths and world-views gathered together to talk about themselves and to understand each other better. This was in essence the fourth World Public Forum-Dialogue of Civilizations (WPF) held in the Greek Island of Rhodes from September 27 to October 1, 2006. WPF recognises the discourse on civilizations as a key element for understanding and improving current international affairs, and identifies two ideological foes: the so-called neo-liberal globalization, with its equalising tendency that neglects cultural differences, and the theory of the clash of civilizations.
“An attack against Iran? Sunni governments would be secretly happy”
In December 2004, King Abdullah of Jordan described the threatening emergence of the “Shia crescent”, a radical Shia arc that went from Damascus to Tehran, passing through the new Bagdad. Now, with Hezbollah’s popularity at its peak, that prophecy sounds truer, and represents a threat for Sunni governments. “From Bahrain to Iraq, we are facing a shia revival. Muqtada al Sadr in Bagdad is getting his inspiration from Hezbollah’s model” said Vali Nasr, a California based young Iranian-American author famous for his recent book “Shia Revival”, which was very well reviewed by The New York Times and Washington Post.
Those Muslims who dissent
For the way Islam is seen in the world, the images of a hostage’s throat being slit in front of a camera are worse than the Danish cartoons. A brave Jordan editor dared to say it, and he was dismissed. Now a French Muslim association rebels against Islamists, with the manifesto “For Freedom of Expression”, appeared in the French press and published in America by Dissent. “We believe that all the contradictions at work in the Muslim world, past and present, should be seen openly – writes Tewfik Allal, author of the statement – One day the experience of freedom will, as Salman Rushdie says, ‘break open the door of this prison’.”
Beyond The Clash of Intolerances
According to Ramin Jahanbegloo, today we are not experiencing a clash of civilizations, but rather a clash of intolerances. He defines intolerance as “mainly the inability or unwillingness to endure something different”. “We must encourage the opposing forces to adhere to values of moderation, tolerance and non-violence”, claims this brave, young Teheran University professor and a member of Reset Doc Scientific Committee.
What we think, what we want
What are the aims of Reset Doc? What do we want? We call for equal conditions within intercultural dialogue, and we refuse to consider the two sides (the West and the East) as compact bodies. We aim to go beyond Orientalism and Occidentalism, beyond respective prejudices, in order to start a real dialogue between the West and the East. The following is a report of our international conference held in Cairo, on the 4-6 March 2006.
Giuliano Amato: ''Dialogue: An antidote to clashes and prejudices''
”Let us abandon the old stereotypes”, said Giuliano Amato, the former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the European Convention during the Reset-Doc conference Beyond Occidentalism and Orientalism in Cairo: “The West and the East must gain awareness of their defects. This battle is not lost" he stated "I believe that the time has come to summon everyone to assume their own responsibilities. Religions, politics, and the media: consolidating and amplifying stereotypes is not without consequences”.
''Drawing a distinct line between religion and politics''
Who should be the partners in a dialogue between the West and the East? According to Mohammed Salmawi, it should be "the two civil societies, which are facing the same problem, the intrusion of religion in daily life. Otherwise we cannot co-exist". The president of the Egyptian writers considers himself “civil” (“secular”, in western terms), and says that Egypt is more secular than other Arab and Muslim states, but less secular than Western ones. He warns that, even though “Egypt has never been a religious state, it is true that the line between religion and politics is no longer as distinct as it was before, and that the West is also suffering from the same malaise”.
Civilizational dialogue versus war talk
There is a remedy for the ‘clash of civilizations’: intercultural dialogue, the "antidote to culture clashes and terror wars". According to Fred Dallmayr, a Professor at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana USA) and member of Reset-Doc scientific committee, "Today we have a huge surplus of 'war talk' and 'mission talk' in the world, and a huge deficit of 'civilizational dialogue'". “Can we have a global civilization, rather than global civil war?" he asks "A global 'virtuous city' in Alfarabi's sense, rather than a global politics dominated by war lords?". A good challenge for anyone.
''The problem is not Islam. It's politics''
"It's because of political conservatism that our societies today are conservative, not because of Islam" according to Hassan Hanafi, Professor of Philosophy at Cairo University, representing a proud Arab and Muslim point of view.
In this interview with Reset-Doc the Egyptian philosopher explains how Islam can (and should) be interpreted as a promoting factor for social change, liberalism and secularism: "Islam can be a plus to the Europeans" he asserts "And the Mediterranean can play a key role in going beyond Occidentalism and Orientalism". Hanafi is also a member of the scientific Committee of Reset-Dialogues on Civilizations.