Another article

Just another article I found while surfing.

Is it possible to be both an Islamic movement and a political party at the same time?

(Early warning..... this is a long one) I still remember the days in late 1980s when I was still in Sekolah Alam Shah, Kuala Lumpur. As a teenager eager to learn more about Islam, I became acquainted the tabligh group. I once went to this huge gathering in Dengkil and I have also helped with the building of the tabligh mosque in Seri Petaling. I can’t remember how many times I have stood up to give the talk about the “six points of tabligh” but I still remember how I trembled on the very first time I stood up to speak. But, despite the regular “going out for three days” and the frequent visits to Masjid India, I felt that there was something missing in the tabligh movement. I explored Al-Arqam too, but, I must admit, the serban put me off a bit. Not the serban itself as I did like wearing serban when I was at Alam Shah, but it was the thickness of the ones worn by Arqam followers that put me off. Yes. I know. It was a petty excuse. But I was only 16 at that time. And then, one day when I was in Form 4, I bought my first copy of Harakah from a stand in Puduraya… The journey into PAS started on that very day. Why PAS? Reading books by the likes of Hassan Al-Banna, Syed Qutb, Fathi Yakan, and supplemented by the regular copies of Harakah, I began to realise that the ultimate aim of any Muslim should be to see the re-establishment of the Islamic State. In the context of Malaysia, no other group can lead the effort to re-establish Islam as deen (way of life) and daulah (state) but PAS. And I first became more seriously involved in PAS in the early 1990s, for two very simple reasons. Firstly is my belief that as a Muslim, the establishment of Islamic syari’ah must be my ultimate ambition. While in Makkah, Muhammad (s.a.w) worked to strengthen his companion’s aqidah (conviction), and this culminated with the hijrah (migration) to Madinah, in which the Islamic state was established. All the work in Makkah was a precursor to the setting up of an Islamic state. Thus, by implication, for any Muslim, whatever they do, it must act as a precursor to the establishment of the Islamic state. Islamic state and Islamic khilafah must remain the ultimate dream of any Muslim. Secondly, I believe that the effort to set up the Islamic state and khilafah cannot be done alone. The only way to do it is to work in a team (jama’ah). Since the work to re-establish the Islamic state is obligatory, I found that Islam gave guidance to its followers as to what type of group can be called the Harakah Islamiyyah – the Islamic movement – i.e. the group that Muslims must sign up to if they are serious about the Islamic state agenda. There are certain criteria to qualify as an Islamic movement. Having looked at the likes of ABIM, JIM, Tabligh and Al-Arqam, I discovered that in Malaysia only PAS fulfils these criteria. The others are simply Islamic groups, not an Islamic movement. The logic was (and still is) simple. If you are serious about wanting to work for Islam, then your ultimate aim must be the re-establishment of the Islamic way if life via the Islamic state. This was what the Prophet (s.a.w) showed us. And if you want to do that in Malaysia, it is a religious obligation to be part of PAS, since it is the only Islamic movement in Malaysia. Period. PAS: then and now I then started becoming more active from 1993 onwards. Since then, I have been exposed more and more to PAS and a bit of its internal working. I came to know several of its top leaders and I personally saw how they are truly committed to the struggle of PAS. PAS to me is very simple. It is an Islamic movement using democracy as a tool to achieve the ultimate aim – the Islamic state. But, as time passes by, I find it more and more difficult to answer the question “What is PAS?”. Especially lately, it is not as easy as before to answer the question “Is PAS an Islamic movement or a political party?” And, increasingly it is also becoming rather apparent that in its current state, ‘PAS the political party’ is not exactly similar to ‘PAS the Islamic movement’ I initially joined. My main concern is, is it really possible for PAS to balance the demands of being a political party with the demands of being an Islamic movement? Or is there a risk that in striving to become a mainstream party accepted by the majority, the Islamic movement elements will eventually become subservient to the political nature of PAS? Repackaging PAS? A political party’s task is simple and straightforward. They need to win votes. Success or failure of a political party is measured by the number of seats that it can win. And the best position to garner the maximum number of votes is in the centre. The British Labour party did a successful repositioning in the mid 1990s when they shifted from the left towards the centre. Whether Labour is a centre left or a centre right is debatable but they are no longer the left wing party of yester-years. By repositioning and continuously reinforcing itself in the centre ground, Labour has won three consecutive general elections. The British Conservatives, a traditionally centre right party, on the other hand, is still struggling to define itself. In its current leadership debate, one camp appeals to the right of the party, while the other camp steers more to the left. Some say that recent events have forced the Conservatives further to the right than ever. Despite the continuing internal debates, the Conservatives too accepts that repositioning is necessary if they were to become government. As a political party, PAS needs to learn from the experience of both Labour and Conservatives. PAS does not need a ‘re-packaging’ for ‘re-packaging’ merely means the same material with new wrapping paper. The call for PAS to ‘re-package’ itself is a call for disaster. If PAS continue to ‘re-package’ its messages – i.e. push forward the same message albeit in a different way or by different faces - then the electorates will clearly see that PAS, in whatever shape or form, will still represent the same ideas they rejected in 2003. If PAS is serious about wresting power from the Barisan Nasional, there needs to be a serious re-thinking of what PAS really is. The party and its message need to be properly defined. A total re-think and re-articulation of PAS’ mission is imperative. Not just ‘re-packaging’. A mere ‘re-packaging’ is a ruinous call. It is faked change. To win elections, what PAS the political party need is real change. It is now clear that PAS cannot win big in elections unless the country is in political turmoil. The 1999 success – if 27 seats out of almost 200 is worthy of being called a success - was not because PAS was strong. It was because Anwar was falsely accused of sodomy, and even that only resulted in 27 seats. Unless several more big sharks in BN were accused of sodomy by their leader again, or a miraculous help comes from Allah, I doubt if PAS would actually ever win the national government if ‘change’ only means the current message being presented by a bunch of younger or friendlier faces clad in three-piece suits – the so-called re-packaging exercise. Change to what? Perhaps the last Muktamar is a testament of how badly PAS members want change. The problem is, although everybody seems to want to change, has anybody asked “change to become what?” What is this new, changed PAS going to look like? What is the ‘changed PAS’ suppose to represent? If ‘change’ simply implies the same politics and ideologies being presented by a different set of people - by those wearing three-piece suits and songkok rather jubah and ketayap - then is that really ‘change’? PAS has to realise that what the Malaysian public has rejected so far is not the jubah and ketayap or who’s who in PAS per se. It is the policies that were being questioned. Without a serious rethink about policies, it is unlikely the public’s perception towards PAS would vary. Unfortunately, despite new faces taking up posts in the last muktamar, PAS is still adamant that there will be no policy change. What I want to know is, for a political party, what is the point of changing anything if the policies rejected by the electorates remain the same? On the Islamic state issue Let us admit one thing. The political reality is, if PAS wants to take over the central government in the 2007 or 2012 election, the need to repeatedly call for an Islamic State must be re-evaluated. Those who are not yet convinced of the beauty of the Islamic state will never give PAS the much needed majority votes if the call for an Islamic state is continuously thumped upon them in its current form. Even the opposition coalition will not be as solid as it could be if the Islamic State issue is not properly resolved. This is no fault of the electorates who rejected PAS. The blame for the dire state of PAS today, and the fear towards the Islamic state, in addition to it being a symptom of a worldwide Islamophobia, should rest on the shoulders of PAS too. One of the mistakes was in publishing the Islamic State document without firstly conducting a careful and detailed study on how the electorates will react. Let me clarify. The publication of such document is perhaps necessary but it should never have been done without a detailed consideration of the public’s reaction and proper preparation to respond to that very reaction. Let us face it. No serious political party would ever publish such a crucial policy document without carefully studying the repercussions. PAS did not take the need for such study seriously, did not tailor the document for the multi-religious Malaysian public, and did not prepare for the repercussion. I went through the document again for the umpteenth time last night and I still cannot see how PAS will ever win the majority votes of the non-Muslims with such document in the background. It was rich in Quranic texts and seriously lacking in policy explanation. The document officially confirms PAS as an exclusive party for the religious Muslims, and put off not only the non-Muslims but also Muslims who take Islam as a private matter and do not see it as deen (way of life) and daulah (state). Lack of clarity And this is why I sympathise with those newly elected to hold higher positions in PAS. The hope pinned on them is colossal, to say the least. PAS members want the party to change and they expressed their exasperation towards past failures to change by electing new faces to hold the top posts. But I remain uncertain as to which direction does the party want to go, and to what extent does the party want to change. There is a lack of clarity in terms of direction and extent of change demanded by the grassroot. There were hardly any comments about the leadership of the incumbent President. Why is it that the members’ frustrations were directed towards the post Deputy President but no one said anything about the President? They both took up the posts at around the same time and they both had about the same amount of time to work on the party. Why is it that the buck stops at the number two post and no higher? Why the focus on changing everyone but the President? I would like to believe that the reason behind the actions is the memberships’ confidence in the leadership of Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi. I suppose the membership has no doubt that he is the one who will enable both Muslims and non-Muslims to give the majority vote to PAS in the elections to come. And surely PAS members has no doubt that if his name is put forward as Prime Minister in waiting, (or Deputy Prime Minister in waiting if Anwar is named as PM), then Malaysians would have no qualms to vote PAS into power. Surely these are the reasons. For sure it not because no one has a solid answer as to what the actual “change” should entail. Between an Islamic movement and a political party. If PAS is serious about changing, then this whole methodology of simultaneously being an Islamic movement and a political party in one go should be re-evaluated. The concept needs an updated interpretation. As it stands, PAS’ interpretation puts being a political party over and above everything else that is expected of an Islamic movement. Yes, an Islamic movement does need to play an active role in politics. An Islamic movement needs to have a big role in shaping the land’s political scene. Any organization that does not take politics as one of it ultimate aims - like many Islam-based NGOs – does not qualify to be an Islamic movement. If politics is left out, then the organization would no longer be syumul (complete), thus disqualifying it from being an Islamic movement. But politics must never be seen as the end all and be all. The way PAS currently work puts many things as subservient to its political agenda. Tarbiyah (education) is being handled by just one of the bureau within the central working committee. The same applies to welfare and outreach (da’wah). Whenever political demands conflict with the demands of other things that an Islamic movement is expected to do, then more than once it is the political imperatives that take priority. Let us take the recent party election as an example. As I stated above, the call for PAS to change was heard loud and clear by everyone. But no one has so far given a proper definition as to what this ‘change’ means. If we were to look at the content of the debates taking place in the muktamar, the so called ‘change’ seems to centre around wanting to make PAS the political party more electable. And, for some reason, the delegates seem to feel that the electability of a party depends more on the who-holds-what-post rather than the vision of each candidate. The changes seem to have been made solely in the hope that these new faces would make PAS electable. There were hardly any discussions on who can strengthen the party’s education, welfare or da’wah. In other words, the consideration was “who can make PAS stronger as a political party”. The question “who can strengthen PAS as an all-encompassing and intellectually robust Islamic movement” was not mentioned so much. There was very limited discussion on what can make PAS-the-Islamic-movement stronger. There is a standardized answer when this type of argument is put forward by PAS’ critiques. I know, because I am one of those who keep giving the standardized answer every time others criticize PAS. That standardized answer is: PAS is an Islamic movement with politics as its main component but PAS never ignores the other elements of Islam. By aiming for political power, and strengthening our political base, we ensure that we can do all else required by Islam. This standardized answer no longer holds water. The fact is, politics has become so overpowering in PAS that many other elements has been unintentionally sidelined. Education and the Islamic movement To take just one example, look at the state of tarbiyah (education) in PAS. Look at the state of schools sponsored by PAS. Look at the education programme being run by PAS at university student level. Look at the education programme being run by PAS at branch levels. They are haphazard, unsystematic and disorganized. Worse still, no one at the higher level seems to be seriously doing anything about it. Everybody is focused on politics. A serious Islamic movement would never allow its education system (tarbiyah) to be in such a disorder. It is education that produces steadfast Islamic workers. It is education that produces sincere politicians who will not budge when tempted with wealth or power. It is education that produces truthful and charismatic leaders of the future. (I am not going to go too deep into this example since many would then come back to me arguing that education can be done in many ways; education must be flexible; education this and education that. I am just going to say that education in PAS is in a sorry state. ) To get a better picture, compare the internal education system and the internal education machinery with the election machinery. When it comes to an election, you will see PAS in full-swing mode. They are efficient and sharp. The central control is swift and the top-leaders’ commitment is insurmountable. The same cannot be said about PAS’ education machinery. Conflicts of fikrah I now want to move on to a slightly more technical example to illustrate how PAS is no longer giving precedence to strengthening its Islamic movement credentials. For an Islamic movement, the issue of fikrah is a matter of utmost importance. It is difficult to find the exact English word for fikrah as it covers so many different aspects of the thought process. But I am going to risk translating fikrah as ‘the way by which one perceives an issue’. Thus, fikrah Islamiyah would mean ‘the way by which one perceives Islam’ and fikrah PAS would mean ‘the way by which one perceives PAS’. For example, if I were to explain what fikrah PAS means to me, I would say “PAS is the one and only Islamic movement in Malaysia which we as Muslims must support”. That is the way I view PAS. I said that the issue of fikrah is of utmost importance for an Islamic movement because it defines the movement in the eyes of its followers. If people see PAS as an Islamic movement, then they will support it despite any weaknesses, and try to work from within to patch up any problems. But if people see PAS purely as a political organization, then they are free to switch camps as and when necessary. If we were to look a bit more into PAS and its new line-up, we will see contradictions. During the last muktamar, several delegates raised the importance of unity and purity of fikrah as a pillar of strength. Several spoke of the dangers of the “anai-anai” – the group of people who are in PAS, but do not subscribe to the fikrah of PAS, and are unwittingly weakening PAS from inside. The main contention against these so called “anai-anai” is that they do not subscribe to the real fikrah of PAS – that PAS is an Islamic movement and doing anything that weakens PAS, from the point of view of religion, is wrong. Despite concerns about the ‘polluted fikrah’ contaminating PAS, and despite calls for the fikrah to be united and purified once again, PAS still elects people from various backgrounds into its top echelon. Several figures now holding important posts in PAS did not come from PAS’ own mould. Some even have a history of working for groups who do not subscribe to PAS’ fikrah. Worse still, there is also one or two who in their student years have worked hard to weaken PAS’ influence among students. Bearing in mind that PAS do not have a set way of scrutinizing candidates’ fikrah, how is it at all possible for a proper Islamic movement to elect people who may not subscribe to the fikrah of PAS into position of significant influence? Even if the top leaders do not have problems with these individuals, do they not see how confusing it is for us on the ground? Surely a proper Islamic movement will see purity and unity of fikrah as more important than anything else. Surely the first step in strengthening any Islamic movement is to firstly be clear about its own fikrah. Yet, these figures are still given high positions in the belief that they can help PAS win elections. Islamic movement or political party? I will not discuss other examples as it will take too long to do so. Suffice to say that increasingly, PAS is becoming more focused on winning elections such that there is a risk of it forgetting that there are those who still see PAS as an Islamic movement first and political party second. Unfortunately, the last muktamar focused almost totally on how to win elections and not how to strengthen the other elements of work resting on the shoulders of an Islamic movement. All the talk about ‘re-packaging’ the party was almost totally aimed at winning elections. Does that mean the delegates want PAS to change into becoming just another political party? Does that mean ‘PAS the political party’ is slowly engulfing ‘PAS the harakah Islamiyah’? As PAS strives to become a mainstream party accepted by the majority, are we going to see the Islamic movement elements become more and more subservient to politics? If PAS continues to push forward its agenda for change without conducting a full internal debate and without encouraging true (and free) intellectual discourse on its future, I fear that the answer is yes. And if PAS decreases itself to being merely another political party, and loses its Islamic movement credentials, it should be forewarned that those of us who has committed our lives to the struggle of an Islamic movement will have no qualms to look for alternatives. End