1) The idea of building this network of “moderate muslims” have long started after the Cold War and initiated in the early 2000s. During the Cold War, the biggest threat to liberal democracy was socialism and communism advocated by USSR. America formed a strategy to plant ideas of liberal democracy in Europe. This resulted in a grassroot movement that propagated ideas of liberal democracy using civil society institutions. Now that the Cold War has long ended, the demolishment of The Berlin Wall symbolized the spread of liberal democracy in Europe and thus the “victory” of America.
2) Research and Development Corporation (RAND), an organization which was highly involved with production of reconnaissance technology as well as strategic thinking for America, adapts the grassroot strategy of Cold War to the present geopolitical scenario.
3) This led to the question, “now that the berlin wall is gone, symbolizing the success of America’s liberal democracy, what would be America’s next biggest threat?” The growth of The Muslim Brotherhood across the globe signals the increasing popularity of political Islam. America understands this very well and declares political Islam as the next biggest threat to liberal democracy.
4) Adapting Cold War tactics, America’s RAND develops a strategy of killing political Islam from the inside. Thus, the idea of Moderate Islam was created. Millions of annual funding from American sources started to flow to liberal grassroot NGOs in the middle east and south east asia. To date, the National Endowment for Democracy has granted an overwhelming total of $34.6 million to Turkey, Egypt and Palestine in opposition of the Muslim Brotherhood movements in the three countries. In Malaysia alone, a total of $8.2 million dollars have been spent by the NED to fund NGOs like SUARAM, IRF, and Mkini DotCom.
5) RAND understands that Moderate Islam cant possibly survive without support from less ‘radical’ Islamists. The solution is to combine numerous “civil society” institutions representing various walks of society to show power in numbers.
6) Power in numbers alone does not mean anything without influence. Thus, there needs to be support from the biggest influencer in regions where political Islam is established. These influencers are none other than Islamists NGOs.
7) Now that Ambiga’s Negara-Ku has managed to garner the support of an Islamist NGO, the pursuit of liberal democracy could never have been easier. Perhaps Ambiga’s meeting with Obama a few months back was quite productive.
8) The next question is, how would liberal organizations engage with IKRAM? Liberal NGOs understand that to collaborate with Islamists is by no means a statement of agreement with political Islam. Therefore an enagement with Islamists is nothing but a strategic move to garner support of the majority in Islam-oriented demographics.
9) Since liberals lack manpower (which is fueled by the spirit of jihad), Islamist organizations would amplify the message of liberals and broaden their appeal through grassroot activities such as usrah and religious talks.
10) Another reason for collaboration with less ‘radical’ Islamists is to provide a competitive alternative from other Islamist movements and to become the spokesperson in demolishing other Islamists. Once more vocal Islamists have been eradicated and liberal democracy is dominant, liberal organizations will no longer require the support of Islamist NGOs like IKRAM.
11) IKRAM’s involvement in Negara-Ku is a great milestone in the movement of liberal NGOs to gain popularity in their effort to suppress political Islam. For once, support from an Islamist NGO is received thus opening doors to a market they have never been able to penetrate.
12) In 2007, Ambiga’s questioning of the syariah law failed to gain support of the majority. The court trial of Lina Joy received widespread opposition from NGOs such as IKRAM (then known as JIM), ABIM and ACCIN(recently chaired by ISMA). IFC’s voice were later amplified by MCCBCHST which became part of COMANGO which attempted to push for pro-LGBT demands in Geneva, Switzerland.
13) Learning from COMANGO’s strategy of building a grand coalition that is small in membership but large in representation, Ambiga now managed to form Negara-Ku which consists of 60+ NGOs notably alumni associations such as United Chinese School Alumni Associations, Dong Zong, and quite intriguingly, an NGO called “Malaysia for Beng Hock”. One might question why these NGOs were there in the first place. Nonetheless, quantity over quality is what Negara-Ku is going for!
14) While Ambiga’s Negara-Ku is screaming ‘Unity! Unity!’, it is clear that at one point, their demands for anti-racism will be nothing but a more toned down attempt to attack and ammend Malaysia’s constitution following the failures of previous organizations and coalitions.
15) Nevertheless, if Ambiga’s Negara-Ku is serious about harmony and going back to the constitution, then let me suggest three things that the coalition can work on as proof that their scream for harmony is not merely rhetoric:
i) To issue a stance on the hudud issue and how it’s implementation aligns with the constitution and the provision which puts Islam as the religion of the federation. Perhaps IKRAM can champion this initiative.
ii) To push for abolishment of vernacular schools in light of solving racial harmony and promoting racial equality in accordance with the social contract.
iii) To pressure DAP to remove it’s unconstitutional policies which clearly writes, “Abolition of the division of ‘bumiputra’ and ‘non-bumiputra’…” I’d like to hear whether Dong Zong will agree on this matter that is clearly against the Malaysian constitution.
Yusri Jamaluddin
ISMA Activist
MSc Business Analytics,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York.
ISMA Activist
MSc Business Analytics,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York.
0 Komentar untuk " Ambiga’s Negara-Ku: A Win-lose situation for IKRAM "