| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Elections Part 1: Vote rigging in Zimbabwe and Birmingham
Allegations of election rigging, fabrication of ballots, multiple voting and descriptions of massive fraud.
No, it's not Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe or even Florida 2000, but the UK's second city Birmingham, in 2004. Not since the times of Victorians in the general election of 1895, when Sir Tankerville Chamberlayne, the Conservative candidate for Southampton, notoriously campaigned waving and throwing sovereigns at the crowds, has Britain seen such shameless election fraud. The extent of the fraud led Richard Mawrey QC, the election commissioner presiding over the Birmingham case to say that the fraud committed would 'disgrace a banana republic.' Though the British establishment has been accused of many things over the last two hundred years (some not repeatable in this magazine), being a banana republic has not been one of them.
As Mawrey concludes, there is not just complacency but denial on the part of those who argue that Birmingham is just an isolated case. Allegations and actual malfeasance have been reported in many parts of the country, so this could be the tip of an iceberg, a case of Donald Rumsfeld's, 'we don't know what we don't know.' The real problem is not to focus our energy on tightening up security around postal voting; rather this is a symptom of a more fundamental malaise in British politics today. Trust in politicians is at an all time low, and the acts committed by local councillors in Birmingham now fulfil the stereotype of the modern politician. As was reported prior to the announcement of the election date, over sixty MPs indicated that they would stand down and not contest their seats in the election, close to 10% of the constituencies represented in the House of Commons. While some, such as veteran Tam Dalyell, have reached the end of their political careers, others have withdrawn after only one term. If those at the heart of the political machinery have doubts about its efficacy, it is not surprising that the electorate are increasingly sceptical about what the system can offer them.
Elections Part 2: A lack of choice - are they thinking what we're thinking?
Henry Ford once famously remarked that US consumers could have any colour they wanted for their motor vehicles as long as it was black. Politics today is no different from the days of the infamous US motor baron. Western politicians often boast about the nature of pluralism in their political process, yet the reality is far removed from the rhetoric. In the UK elections, three major capitalist parties are fighting it out over small differences while other ideological parties not willing to engage in political deception are effectively excluded by Britain's unwritten constitution. As we have seen in the elections thus far, all three parties broadly agree on the chosen political paradigm and even dip into the same political lexicon, using terms such as 'choice,' 'opportunity' and 'looking out for hardworking families.' What is abundantly clear however is that regardless of which party wins, there will not be a shockwave through the political system. May 6 will witness no profound effect on the markets nor will we see a sudden re-nationalisation of private assets, an abandoning of the 'War on Terror,' an abolishment private property or a return of religion back into politics. What these parties differ on is specific policies and means to achieve common ends and shared values of liberalism and capitalism. Despite this it is fashionable to condemn other countries for their lack of pluralism such as China, a country that only has one state communist party. However what would happen if instead of having one communist party it had two communist parties, say a Marxist/Leninist and a Trotskyist fighting it out in a national election under a communist constitution. Of course if such a hypothetical scenario came about, such a set up in China would still be condemned, yet this is exactly what we see in western democracies. It is clear that ideological nations rooted in values and common visions ensure via constitutions written or otherwise the types of parties that are permitted to operate. The British establishment, the US founding fathers as well as Europe's secular elite are well aware of the need to carefully manage such political arrangements.
US high-school students not too sure about the value of freedom
While George Bush has been busy preaching the superiority of 'liberty' to overseas audiences, students in the United States remain unconvinced about key aspects of liberal doctrine. Over a third of 100,000 students questioned in a recent survey felt that the First Amendment (the heart of the US Bill of Rights) went "too far" in guaranteeing freedom of speech, press, worship and assembly. Only half felt that newspapers should be allowed to publish stories that did not have the government's approval. The two-year, $1m survey across US schools - in which 8,000 teachers were also interviewed - suggested students disagreed with key elements of the First Amendment, and were more censorious on some issues than the liberal establishment, who are so keen to lecture others. Some 17% of students polled felt people should not be allowed to express unpopular views, as opposed to 3% of teachers. Roughly half the students polled wrongly believed that the US government had the right to censor the Internet, while two-thirds believed it was illegal to burn the US flag - another common misconception. The president of the John S and James L Knight Foundation, which conducted the research, said: "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to this nation's future."
Contrary to being a danger to the nation's future, the views expressed by American students clearly illustrate the ideological confusion at the heart of liberal societies. Democracy in essence is about the will of the majority, so how do you protect the minority from the vagaries of popular sovereignty? The fundamental tension that exists between liberty and security has been epitomised by the recent passage of new anti-terrorism legislation in the UK, which effectively threw key rights bestowed by the Magna Carta, back in the 13th century, into the political dustbin. At the same time, the government claims this legislation is essential to maintain the nation's security. Yet John Locke, whose ideas influenced the US constitution and the Bill of Rights, was dismissive of this type of governmental behaviour, writing, "It will not do in justifying strong unconstrained government to point to the perils that it might protect us from: This is to think that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischief may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes, but are content, nay think it safety, to be devoured by lions."
The tension between values and interests has been well documented in the support of tyrants in strategic parts of the world such as the Middle East, who while they steadfastly support western foreign policy and provide cheap oil, also tend to torture and boil their political opponents alive. The tension between individual freedom of speech and collective harm epitomised in legislation prohibiting incitement to racial hatred, and which controversially in the future may prohibit religious hatred as well is all too apparent. Another anomaly is that it is recognised that faith is important in shaping the beliefs of millions in the way they view politics, while at the same time faith is detached from societal life and relegated to the private sphere. These are just a few examples that indicate the contradictory elements that exist in liberal secular societies. In such an ideologically schizophrenic society, it's no wonder that the students are so confused.
Chemical Johnson?
In a recent case, an American court threw out a lawsuit filed by Vietnamese plaintiffs over the use of Agent Orange by the US during the Vietnam War. The plaintiffs were seeking compensation from US firms such as Dow Chemical and Monsanto that manufactured the chemical for the military in the 1960s. The alleged victims say the defoliant - which contains toxic dioxins - is responsible for health problems affecting millions of Vietnamese. Between 1962 and 1971, large quantities of Agent Orange were sprayed across parts of Vietnam to deprive communist North Vietnamese forces of forest cover; Agent Orange was named after the colour of its container. The active ingredient was a strain of dioxin that stripped the jungle bare. In time, the plaintiffs contend, the dioxin spread through the food chain causing a proliferation of birth defects and deformities. Babies were born without eyes or arms, or were missing internal organs. A group representing alleged Vietnamese victims says three million people were exposed to the chemical during the war, and at least one million suffer serious health problems today.
Though it is understandable for the courts to not want to interfere in areas of national security, or punish corporations for carrying out the orders of a president exercising his powers as commander in chief, there are two aspects of this issue that are not defensible. Firstly, the use of Agent Orange by the US government led by Lyndon Johnson is a timely reminder that western 'democratic' states are not immune from acts of systematic barbarity and human callousness. This should not be forgotten as we listen to the rhetoric of peace and human rights emanating from Washington and London during their 'War on Terror.' The second point is more illustrative of a more repugnant political trend that views human suffering from a perspective of national hierarchy. In 1984, chemical companies paid $180m to settle a lawsuit with US war veterans, who said that their health had been affected by exposure to the substance. Compensation apartheid is a poor reflection of humanity, when one's nationality is put above the righteousness of one's cause. If Agent Orange caused harm to US war veterans then it certainly would have caused severe devastation to a civilian population who were largely treated as cannon fodder in a brutal war. This dismissive attitude towards civilian populations was echoed recently by one of the US Marines' most senior generals in Iraq. Caught on tape Lt General James Mattis, was recorded saying, "Actually, it's quite a lot of fun to fight; you know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling; it's fun to shoot some people."
In a world where a western life is still considered more 'valuable', and the lives of the 'locals' so insignificant, it is not surprising that scepticism remains about western claims to hold a higher regard for human dignity.
The Hadith - A source of Shariah law
Support in the Islamic world for the application for Shariah law in the political system has become widespread, as is attested to by a multitude of different sources. One of the related features of this resurgence is that attention has returned to the Islamic legislative sources. 'Prophetic Traditions', 'traditions of the Prophet', 'narrations of the Prophet' and the like are some of the expressions that refer to the term hadith in Islamic jurisprudence. Islamic literature rarely goes without a mention of some hadith and references to them feature in numerous articles in New Civilisation. What do these expressions refer to however, and what function do hadith serve?
Hadith (pl. ahadith) refer to accounts of the Prophet Muhammad during his lifetime, specifically to his actions, his words and his silence on matters of which he was cognisant. These witness accounts were extensively recorded, and committed to memory, during his lifetime by those closest to him and transmitted to subsequent generations. Following the death of the Prophet they were collated by numerous hadith specialists (muhaddithun), painstakingly verified and compiled in voluminous books of indexed hadith. The process of verification formed part of the elaborate sciences of hadith, ulum al-hadith, a hugely detailed science which required detailed knowledge of narrator profiles, establishing criteria for the attestation and rejection of accounts, rules of cross-referencing, and grading of historical accounts amongst its many branches. There are numerous collections of hadith, but the highest in regard is that of the Central Asian muhaddith Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ismaeel known as Imam al-Bukhari (d. 265AH), due to the rigour of his critical approach to hadith.
The importance of hadith lies in the fact that the Prophet Muhammad is a source of emulation for every Muslim. His life is part of the divine revelation and free from error (ma'soom) in representing the Islamic way of life, being a divinely appointed Messenger in the Islamic belief system; accounts of his life are therefore pivotal to accurately emulating him. In the context of Islamic jurisprudence, emulation has a very specific meaning however: the corpus of hadith represents one of the sources of Islamic law (Shariah). They are used, amongst other Islamic legal sources, to attest the legality of an Islamic opinion, verdict or rule, and when deriving law for new situations through the process of ijithad (see previous edition). Reference to hadith is therefore a pivotal part of Islamic jurisprudence and to its entire legal framework. As with legal practice under any organised legal system, detailed knowledge of hadith cases, accompanied explanations and legal discourse by other legal experts are pre-requisite competencies for the Islamic jurist. The reference to hadith in Islamic literature is therefore to verify the Islamic credentials of a particular opinion, view or rule, to demonstrate that it is firmly rooted in the Islamic sources of law and would have likely been approved by the Prophet himself. The hadith also elaborate the character of Islam itself for they cover matters of family life, ritual worship, social and economic issues, and ruling, politics and temporal law, in all a comprehensive spiritual and political system.
| |
|
|
