[WCUSP] Fundamentalism

[Odile Hugonot Haber]

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend:

Fundamentalist Non State Actors, Democracy and Human Rights


  marieme helie lucas*

Asia Europe People's Forum

Helsinki
September 3-6, 2006

(cluster 3: Democracy and Human Rights)

 The world has changed since the first international human
rights organizations developed as we know them today: most conflicts
do not any more occur between two armies of two nation states, hence
most armed conflicts involve one or more non state actors and many
human rights violations are committed by non state actors.
Among these non state actors are political movements, ranging from
very conservative to extreme right, aiming at political power but
working under the cover of religion, that are known as
'fundamentalists'.

 These movements  exist on all continents and use all
religions to disguise their political agenda, and they have been
steadily growing since the end of World War II.

Just to give a few examples at random:
- the Christian Right in the US, which assassinated, for instance,
the pro abortion doctors and assaulted the clinics are the same
people that also back and inspire  Bush's program against social
welfare,  reproductive rights, gays, etc... , and promote war,
teaching of 'creationism' in schools, etc...
- The Hindu Right, which assassinated Gandhi in 1948, perpetrated
mass massacres of Muslims ( the latest in Gujrat in 2002), as well as
assassinations of Christians and burning of churches and convents,
also inspires and manages the RSS that serves the electoral ambitions
of BJP.
- the Orthodox Church has led a successful offensive in Central
Europe in the past few years, putting an end to secularism in Croatia
three years ago and in Serbia this year, by gaining a specific
political representation, while, for instance they forced the
teaching of religion into schools in Russia, eliminated sex education
from the curriculum in Lithuania and secured in Slovenia and in
Poland,  the right for medical professionals to refuse assistance for
services deemed immoral.
- Buddhists groups, rarely talked about, who were behind the
assassination of the Prime Minister by a monk in 1959 to oppose an
agreement with the Tamil dissidents that was leading to more
autonomy, managed to obtain recognition for Buddhism as the first
religion of Sri Lanka in the 1972 constitution and now push for
communal war in Sri Lanka.
- Better known are the Orthodox Jewish forces that support the
aggressive military occupation policy of Israel in the Middle East
- and  Muslim fundamentalists, - pointed at the world over in all
international media for their bloody bombings in Europe and North
America- who, in Muslim countries,  not only decimated left
opponents, intellectuals, artists and the Muslim masses that they
call 'unbelievers' (kofr) when they do not abide by their political
program, as they did in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Algeria, etc...,
but also put an end to democracy and imposed  ( or attempted to
impose) theocracies.

It is important to note that, although i am deeply convinced that
fundamentalism is now a shared disgrace all over the world which
operates through various religions, most of the examples I use
involve Muslim fundamentalists: the only reason for it is that, as an
Algerian citizen now living in Europe, it is the one form of
fundamentalism I know best, from many years of living experience as
well as as a researcher and as an activist.


 In all cases, what we see at work is by no means religious
movements, but political extreme right forces that manipulate
religions to further their political agenda and to gain political
power. Ambiguities and cowardice in the Left, Far Left and
progressive forces at large - whether in the West or in the Third
World -, in condemning fundamentalist forces, stem from this
confusion they entertain between religion and politics.
 Human rights concepts and instruments designed for other
times often prove inefficient when applied to present day rise of
fundamentalism. If the responsibility of fundamentalists as
perpetrators of human rights violations may be addressed, their
identity as extreme right political forces is not unveiled, while the
unholy alliances they knit across religions and across nations should
be a first indicator of their political nature.

 We saw these unholy alliances at work, for instance, during
the UN World Conference on Population in Cairo ( 1993), when the
Vatican and Al Azhar publicly allied against reproductive rights; and
again during the UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1996.
 But even more telling is the verbal support that Le Pen,
leader of the extreme right national Front Party in France, and
Haider, leader of the extreme right Freedom Party in Austria, lent to
the fundamentalist FIS ( Islamic Salvation Front) of Algeria in 1995,
i.e. at the peak of the  massacres they perpetrated  against the
civilian population during that decade. This reminds us of the
inspiration and support given by the German Nazi Party to the
emerging Hindu Right.


 The failure to recognize the political nature of
fundamentalisms, regardless of their political agenda, ultimately
benefits fundamentalists: they often enjoy the protection of human
rights organizations, in the name of religious rights, minority
rights, cultural rights, etc...
It is even more so in situations where fundamentalists claim to
represent an oppressed  minority, when they face repression by their
own governments, or when they are under threat of imperialist powers.
This is now in full bloom, due to the U.S. attacks  on the Middle
East and the war on terrorism: it has devastating consequences on
democratic anti fundamentalist forces in Muslim countries and
communities as well as on the citizens of migrant descent in Europe.

 Let us look at some of these consequences on human rights and
on democracy.

- The exclusive focus of human rights organizations on state
responsibility and accountability, frees non state actors of any
responsibility and accountability for the crimes and violations they
commit. Fundamentalists end up being seen exclusively as victims -
which they may be in some cases -,  while they are, also and
primarily, violators.  If and when they are persecuted by states,
they definitely should enjoy protection of their basic human rights (
such as: no arbitrary detention, protection against torture, fair
trial, etc...); but as perpetrators of many crimes and violations,
they should not enjoy some of the provisions designed for victims
only ( such as asylum), and they should not be given a political
platform from which to propagate their views.  Their double identity,
as victims and as perpetrators, is overlooked by most human rights
organizations, who fail to face the consequences of such a situation.

- Moreover, seeing fundamentalists exclusively as victims induces a
hierarchy among victims.
As an example, Algerian fundamentalists benefited from political
asylum in many European countries, on the ground that they would be
persecuted by the state in their own country; meanwhile, their
victims were denied asylum and were slaughtered in Algeria by the
Islamic Armed Groups ( GIA), on the ground that they were not
persecuted by states but by non state actors.
Moreover, as victims of state repression, fundamentalists were
repeatedly invited by human rights organizations, and their views on
violence in Algeria were the only ones represented at such gatherings.

- The plight of democratic forces struggling for survival under both
undemocratic states and neo fascist fundamentalist forces is ignored
by the very progressive forces that should be their allies, and their
struggles and resistance are  made totally invisible. As if some
victims ( for instance, of imperialism) were more legitimate victims
than others (for instance, of extreme right fundamentalist forces).

- Fundamentalists launch an attack on democracy, in the literal sense
of the word:   they want to impose on all citizens  what they claim
is The Law of God ( as interpreted by them), by definition
a-historical and unchangeable, i.e. a theocracy; and to eradicate the
laws of the people, by definition changeable according to the will
and vote of the people, i.e. the essence of democracy.

- Further, they want to impose a religious identity on all citizens,
by virtue of their birth place rather than by choice, thus denying
freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of consciousness.
This is  an insult to both believers, whose personal faith is reduced
to fate, and to unbelievers whose rights as free thinkers is totally
denied. As an example, Muslim fundamentalists have successfully
induced Europe to label " Muslims" all immigrants and even the second
and third generations of migrant descent from Muslim countries,
regardless of their individual religious beliefs. A faith is slowly
being turned into a "race" - the only historical precedent being the
Jews during World War II.

- In Europe as well as in our countries of origin, we witness the
erosion of secular space, under the  huge pressure of fundamentalists
to introduce religious laws for minorities.
  Muslim fundamentalists make similar demands in different countries
in Europe: all of them revolve around gender apartheid ( separate
schools with different curriculum for boys and girls, in particular
no teaching of biology, art, music, sports, and teaching of
creationism;  separate wards and  women-only personnel in public
hospitals for men and women (a real joke in France for instance,
where public hospitals cannot afford enough medical personnel, let
alone female ones); separate swimming pools for men and women; the
introduction of Muslim Personal Law ( or Family Code) for presumed
"Muslims", i.e. laws that affect primarily women insofar as they
regulate marriage, divorce, polygamy, repudiation, custody of
children, inheritance, etc...to the benefit of men.
After the hierarchy of victims, we are now confronted with a
hierarchy of rights in which women's rights come last, after minority
rights, after religious rights.

- Governments are generally prepared to trade women's rights for
social rest, - this is no surprise; but human rights organizations
and the Left at large also trade with fundamentalists, in the name of
tolerance and cultural relativism. They do so despite the outcry by
migrant women, many of whom have fled from such an oppressive
situation in their own countries, or women of migrant descent who are
accustomed to more freedom and equality.
They do so despite the outcry of all secularists from migrant
descent, believers and unbelievers alike. They do so for fear of
being accused of 'Islamophobia', a concept coined by fundamentalists
in order to silence dissent. As if fundamentalist neo fascists were
the only legitimate true representatives of 'Islam', and of all
citizens whose parents once migrated from Muslim countries.

- This situation leads to the erosion of citizenship to the benefit
of 'communities'. It raises a number of questions: who speaks for the
so-called community? who speaks in the name of religion? who speaks
in the name of culture? Generally it is male conservative religious
self appointed 'leaders'. This is a highly undemocratic process of
representation.
Why should religion represent a whole population? I can see no other
example in the present European context, where religious men are
called to solve social problems, except when  ' Muslims' are
concerned. Do governments call on the Vatican when there is a miners'
strike? or do they negotiate with unions? !

- With the erosion of the notion of citizenship comes a growing
fragmentation of the people into smaller and smaller entities. While
a few decades ago, migrants in Europe  united and organized for their
rights with vigor and success, it is now "Muslims", "Sikhs",
"Hindus", etc... who seek separate rights, status and representation
and make varied demands. How to ignore the fact that this
fragmentation of the people weakens struggles and  ultimately serves
capital?...
That could well explain the tolerance that fundamentalists in Europe
enjoy from governments. But what of the Left with its short sighted
defence of fundamentalists?

 These are frightening consequences of the lack of political analysis
regarding fundamentalism.

 When the Left supports fundamentalist movements and parties
on the ground that they are popular forces oppressed by undemocratic
states or by imperialism, they are blind to their political program
and to their societal project.
Popular they are. And populist too. So were fascists, and Hitler
indeed was elected by the people.

 To a situation of oppression, exclusion, marginalization,
racism, etc... there are  responses from the Left  at large, from
progressive or revolutionary forces; and there are responses from the
Right, there are fascist responses. Fundamentalism is a response from
the Extreme Right, it is not a legitimate answer that can or should
be supported.

 Progressive secular oppositions to undemocratic states,
imperialism and capitalism exist in all Muslim countries and  they
exist among migrants and citizens of migrant descent in Europe as
well. They exist despite fierce repression by states, despite
physical elimination by fundamentalist non state actors and despite
abandonment by those who should be their natural allies: democrats,
progressive, secular, human rights people in Europe.

 Progressive forces in Muslim countries warned the world for
the past few decades already, regarding the fascist nature of
fundamentalism. Largely in vain, it seems.
We feel as lonely as must have felt the anti nazi Germans in the
early thirties, when those who should have listened to their warning
were busy compromising in Munich, supposedly for keeping peace in the
world, with a Frankenstein monster that was soon to impose its rule
over many peoples and nations.

 Give us visibility. Give us a voice.  We are the alternative.

_______________

* Algerian sociologist. Founder of the 'Women Living Under Muslim
Laws' international solidarity network.
Former International Coordinator of WLUML.