Islamist 'Democratic' Parties | westminsterjournal.com | muslim populations, democratic world, democratic states, democratic societies, democratic systems, islamist, referenda, dem

Home

Europe

Islamist 'Democratic' Parties

Written by Dominic Whiteman

Sunday, 16 December 2007

Although talk of an Islamicisation of Europe is both exaggerated and unhelpful, and no other great threat to democracy exists (while China and Russia behave themselves), it is time now – in the early days of the twenty first century - to ask the nations of the West and the democratic world, in a series of referenda, whether they wish to carry on with their democratic systems of government. Furthermore, it would be helpful, through probing surveys, to ask the undemocratized world if they are keen to remain undemocratized or whether they too would prefer to become democratic states.

Why now?

To kill off the mendacious Islamist “democratic” parties at birth, which have sprung up around the world in recent years, which would all abolish democracy, should they become electorally victorious in the states in which they stand to be elected – though none of them would ever admit to this.

For a vote for democracy by a country’s population in a referendum would then allow the country’s government to establish legislation banning “democratic” parties intent on destroying democracy from elections, thus safeguarding our freedoms for years to come. Surveys in undemocratic states would allow the West to toe-dip on which countries were ripe for support and which should be left alone to try their best on their own.

Would banning democratic Islamist parties be undemocratic?

On the one hand one can argue that - even in minority - Islamist parties better reflect the desires and aspirations of (sections of) Muslim populations within democratic societies.

On the other hand, one can argue that Islamist parties are only engaging in democracy as another means of overthrowing democratic society – each “democratic” electoral push a stepping stone on the way to establishing an Islamist hegemony.

Any sensible purveyor of the world today would see the latter answer as being the only answer. Ban Islamist parties from taking part in democracy unless they fully declare allegiance to the country and its system (constitutional monarchy, presidency etc) in which they are attempting election, agree to secular government ad infinitum, and bow down to the democratic state’s history of democracy, traditions and liberties as being dominant over any religion (or version thereof) in government. Then – even if they put pen to paper in agreeing all these terms (by doing so, they’d lose all respect amongst Islamist extremists) – watch them like hawks and continually expose them for their true motivations, however much they whine and cry “victim”.

Banning Islamist parties from participating in democracy now – or making them bow down to democracy and exposing their true intentions – will sort out troubles before they start brewing. For what happens when the world realizes an Islamist party has just won an election? Look no further than Algeria: in December 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front won the first round of the country's first multi-party elections. Following pressure from western governments, the military then intervened and cancelled the second round, forced then-president Bendjedid to resign, and banned the Islamic Salvation Front. It then became a question of "the ballot or the bullet" and the ensuing conflict engulfed Algeria in the violent Algerian Civil War. More than 160,000 people were killed between 17 January 1992 and June 2002. Many civilians were massacred.

Much easier to nip this problem in the bud – force Islamist parties into a corner and have our populations openly declare their support for democracy, in its myriad forms, and thus openly declare alternatives as unwanted and parties for alternatives as useless and redundant.

We should never underestimate the Islamists’ determination. There are people walking the streets of Western democratic cities today who really believe that their twelve kids – all (born) Muslim – are going to be part of a world where the black flag of Islam rules everywhere. I met one this week – a cab driver contracted to a British TV Network – who, driving through Shepherd’s Bush, on a warm Friday evening, with streets full of scantily clad maidens and over-refreshed youths, announced to me that “all this chaos will be gone when Islam rules in London”. To my response of “that will be a shame – people are having fun” – he listed, like a pre-programmed android, the usual nonsense about demographic changes and what is written is written and why my idea of fun would see me burning in hellfire. No point arguing with an android – I asked him to switch on the radio and had a good chuckle when that top 40 track “Let’s all make love” filled the car.

The good news is that for every Islamist drone there are several sensible Muslims, who prefer just to get on in the world and contribute hugely to the democracies they choose to inhabit. I remember one such Muslim man, from earlier on this year, in Brick Lane, in London’s diverse East End. “Let them cause a fuss in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia” he said, “they’re just a few hotheads and they give us all a bad name by hanging around in Britain.”

When you have an enemy which is prepared to lie at all costs to achieve its aims, you have to look at their more sinister methods of overthrowing democratic governments. Most democratic Islamist parties are ineffectual in comparison.

I recently returned from a meeting with a representative of the excellent Vigilant Freedom team, in Bangkok. Has anyone noticed that the military coup which happened there on 19th September 2006 has left a Muslim Prime Minister in charge – who has appointed a Muslim Interior Minister? (Recall, Thailand’s Muslim population is 60 million, of which only 10% is Muslim). Has anyone noticed how the new leader – his democratically-elected predecessor militarily overthrown and now residing in London – has scrapped extreme preacher lists and apologized for the hard-handed tactics of his predecessor in the restive Southern provinces (where most of Thailand’s Muslims – and all the agitative ones - reside)? The new Prime Minister has also announced that he would allow a series of Muslim religious regulations of Islamic law to be employed in the resolution of some disputes, especially related to inheritance and family affairs, in these southern provinces. All this against a background of severe curbs on the Thai press and media, where even a mention of the former PM Thaksin gets broadcasters facing serious charges. There is talk of the abolishing of the key democratic parties in Thailand as the coup leaders consolidate their position. As recently as 2004, The Bangkok Post newspaper identified JI (Jemaah Islamiah) and the Malaysian radical group Kampulan Mujahideen Malaysia as being involved in the unrest in the south yet the new PM has just made Thailand’s southern borders even more porous and attractive to Muslim extremists, notably from Indonesia. Why?

Look at Hizb ut Tahrir’s aims in Bangladesh, current violence in Pakistan, the failed coups of the recent past in Central Europe and elsewhere. The Islamists hope that soon they will have their pure state and they’ll try anything to get it.

Perennial vigilance is vital. So is the support of the people. It is time for us to stand up – again – for democracy. It is time we gave democracy a dust off. Time we let the dust of Islamist so-called democratic parties – who abuse the good name of democracy by cynically associating with the democratic process - blow away in the wind called freedom.

Dominic Whiteman is spokesperson for the London-based VIGIL anti-terrorist organization – an international network of terror trackers, including former intelligence officers, military personnel and experts ranging from linguistic to banking experts.

Bookmark with:

Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Words for the Day

verbose: wordy.

tutelage: guardianship; protection; also, instruction.

sunder: to break apart.

Westminster Journal

Stay updated. Subscribe to our service and get bi-monthly updated news.

Journal Restructuring

In September 2010 the Westminster Journal concludes the moving of its centre of operations to New York. This is partly due to England's often senseless libel judgements and partly because of a restructuring of the journal under a corporation of new writers. After three years we decided it was time to make some changes. Though we are still called the Westminster Journal and our focus will remain British, New York is the journal's new home. The...

Recent Articles

Most Viewed

Words for the Day

Westminster Journal