Global Intifada

An interesting discussion arose on an online Islamic forum as to which government was truly ‘legitimate’ in Afghanistan.

The proponents of the current regime argue that it is the only valid government since many Afghans have engaged in the elections whereas the Taliban is an illegitimate government since it arose by imposing itself upon the people by military force.

Although this argument is appealling, there are several apparent problems with it.

Firstly, the standard of whether or not the people approve of a government is not in an election. An election does not decide whether a government is acceptable by the people but merely assists in the determination of the head of state or other government officials. The most it can show is implicit acceptance, not explicit acceptance.

In order to show that a government has been accepted by the people, their must have been a national referendum affirming the form of government or at least a representative body that was going to create the government or, and this is the best way to judge approval, if the people themselves vote on the legality of a Constitution that highlights the form of government.

None of these methodologies of approval existed in Afghanistan during the formation of the present government. Afghanis did not engage in a national referendum that approved or rejected the Constitution. The Constitution was written and formed by the Loya Jirga, which is not a representative body, but a body comprised largely of local rulers and warlords from the Northern Alliance, neither of which were voted into power or appointed by local councils to represent the people. These warlords and local leaders were not politicians, but military leaders who had used force to establish themselves.

Furthermore, the claim that the Taliban was an illegitimate government because it used force to acquire power would also invalidate the legitimacy and democratic nature of the present government, which was clearly put into power by the U.S. The formation of the present government, in fact, the acquisition of power of certain key figures within the present government, would not have been possible without the aerial support of the US Air Force and special forces operations. The current ruler of Afghanistan is not an indigenous popular leader who suffered alongside his people for the past 20 years, but someone who lived a comfortable life in the suburbs of Maryland and was involved in the oil business.

If anything, the Taliban can be considered more legitimate than the present government for three reasons:

Firstly, although both governments used force to come to power, the military actions of the Taliban was not directed at the people, but at the warlords who came to power through subjecting the masses to unbearable hardships such as constant warfare, bribery, toll roads, abuse of power, etc. The Taliban eliminated many of these moral wrongs. I am not arguing that the Taliban were infallible and free from error, but compared to the circumstances that they developed in, they were far more superior morally.

Secondly, the Taliban was largely a popularly supported movement whereas the Northern Alliance was largely a self-interested movement that recieved most of its support in defeating the Taliban from a foreign power. This lends further credence to the claim that the Taliban are the legitimate government of Afghanistan since they recieved less foreign support than the Northern Alliance which later gave rise to the current Afghan regime. How can a ‘democratic’ movement be established without popular support and foreign aid? Looks more like a puppet regime. Furthermore, it appears that the Taliban is gaining more and more popular support as its conflict with both Afghan and US security forces seems to intensify. Every student of political science and the military arts recognizes that a successful and continuous guerilla campaign requires support from the general population. If the current regime is truly viewed as being legitimate, why are their more and more attacks at a greater frequency and intensity occurring with more and more popular support? This fact alone seems to indicate that the message being sent out by Western powers and media is far from the truth.

Thirdly, and this is the most important: the Taliban is not a democratic movement therefore its definition of legitimacy will not be based on elections. The question of whether a government is legitimate or not depends on the type of political system or political philosophy that a particular people espouses. For Muslims, the ultimate form of legitimacy for a government is its just and consistent application of the Shari’ah. The Taliban did just this and according to their own internal definition as well as the general Islamic definition, they were the valid government. I am not claiming that their application of the Shari’ah was perfect, but that their government was, technically speaking, legitimate.

Western foreign policy has consistently proven to be short-sighted and obfuscates the reality of the facts ‘on the ground’ with its own ideological aspirations. The presence of ‘elections’ and ‘voting’ makes foreign policy analysts and think tank professors pat each other on the back, but these ideological celebrations merely conceal the fundamentally inherent contradictions of the true nature of the situation.

Lastly, it should be noted that the treatment of the government of Afghanistan, which is more likely than not technically more illegitimate than the Taliban, is vastly different from the treatment of legitimate democracies or democratic movements such as those in Pakistan (which is completely ignored in favor of the dictatorship of Musharraf) and in Palestine. Palestine presents a unique case study of how Western civilization will deal with the inherent contradiction of its ideological aspirations.

HAMAS was elected into power by democratic means and although it represents the will of its people, has been largely criticized and has constantly had its domestic and foreign policy dramatically undercut. The unilateral foreign policy of Israel and the US will only further radicalize the Muslims at large. Their is an important distinction between HAMAS and other Palestinian groups: whereas other groups nominally appealled to Arab nationalism and Islam, HAMAS is a full fledged Islamic group. Thus, it is conceivable that more Muslims and Arabs will empathize with their government and its aspirations, especially since it came to power through an entire legitimate means. The aggressive Israeli policy to force HAMAS to recognize Israel will only be seen as another instance of the Zionist state bullying the weaker Muslim state resembling a David and Goliath struggle. Such actions will only further the international consensus of establishing a two state solution.

The underlying purpose of this post was to highlight that the situation in the Muslim world is far more complicated than the simplified and ideologically myopic presentation that it is receiving in the Western media and its political and intellectual circles. The Muslim world has been in an almost continuous and systematic process of resurgence for the past 200 years and many of the events that are occuring today are either directly or indirectly related to Western colonialism of Muslim lands. The War on Terrorism is a thinly veiled ideological attack on this Islamic resurgence and it is bound to fail because no weapon exists that can destroy the power of an idea.

Terrorism is a type of political violence. To declare war on terrorism is like declaring war on war. It is a self-defeating process. The war on terrorism, of course, was merely coined so as not to alarm Muslim populations and governments to the real objective of this conflict which is to redesign the Muslim world in order to make it more convenient for Western interests. The issue of political violence is irrelevant largely because the majority of the Muslim population, including my self, recognizes that the use of violence against civilians is inherently wrong and goes against the fundamental tenets of our faith. However, the present day issues of our community do not necessarily mean that we automatically side with either the US (the protagonist) and the terrorists (the antagonists). We side with truth and justice, regardless if it is against the US, the Terrorists, or even our own mothers.

Terrorism as a methodology is bound to fail to effectively revive Islamic societies, but the use of warfare and clever politically spun phrases will do little to prevent the Islamic resurgence as well.

It is in the best interest of the US and all of the West to stop interfering in Muslim societies and respect them all as a civilization and allow them to establish systems of power (social, political, and economic) that are in accordance with the teachings of Islam. Make no mistake, the use of Western ideas is a system of control since Western powers seek to use them to prevent Muslim societies from carrying out their collective volition and vision. If Muslim societies seek to direct their destinies in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Islamic traditions, the Western world will only damage its credibility and foster enmity with the Muslim world if it seeks to alter or prevent them from doing so.

If the world truly wants peace, Muslims need to be left alone, completely and unequivocally, to radically redefine their civilization.

Share This