ANALYSIS, Nov 24 — Amid debate on the future of political Islam and its compatibility with democracy, Malaysia recently offered contrasting views spearheaded — coincidentally — by two prominent politicians viewed by many as nemeses: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Held recently, the inaugural Kuala Lumpur Summit featured Dr Mahathir as its chairman; a week before that, the World Forum for Muslim Democrats — also here for the first time — had Anwar as its convener.

While the Forum touted the “Muslim Democrat” concept as a way to fit in the current political scenario, the Kuala Lumpur Summit saw democracy and civil society as challenges facing Islamists worldwide begging for a solution.

Democracy in Islamism

Dr Mahathir’s tenure as the nation’s longest-serving prime minister was marked by his disdain towards the Western world, which he saw as so-called “proxies of Jews” against the Muslim world, despite his disinclination towards Islam as an organised religion.

Comparatively, Anwar had then been cultivating allies with the West — leading to accusations of him being a “Jew agent” — and has been trying to peddle the image of a modern Muslim democrat under persecution from alleged state-sponsored tyranny.

This dichotomy showed itself in the events they each patronised.

In its resolution, the Forum had mooted inclusivity and tolerance between differing views to counter the rising force of religious fanaticism that espouses violence to achieve its goals, such as the jihadist militant group Islamic State.

“The way forward for Muslim countries or Muslims is to understand, they need to be inclusive and pluralistic… and appreciate the need to collaborate with one another,” Anwar said in his keynote speech.

Acknowledging that most participants were unfamiliar with the concept of “Muslim Democrats”, the Forum provided copies of a paper written by Persian-American academic and author Vali Nasr titled “The Rise of Muslim Democracy”.

In it, Nasr proposed Muslim Democrats as a counter to “classic Islamism”, suggesting they eschew the rule of Shariah law or the restoration of an Islamic caliphate; instead, they should harness the values of Islam to help them win support in a democratic system.

A panel in the Forum, which also included Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad from Malaysia’s Islam-based party PAS, had even warned Islamists against using democracy as a “taxi ride” to achieve power and later demolishing it to keep the status quo.

In contrast, the Summit appeared steadfast on the possibility of Islamic states forming worldwide, and saw the concept of a civil state where minority voices are represented by the civil society as counter to the notion.

In his keynote speech, Dr Mahathir was critical of the roles played by democracy and civil society, and lamented that a government elected by the majority has to instead appease the whims and fancies of minorities.

“The power of civil society is great. The minorities can actually overthrow the government. But if this power is abused and governments are overthrown indiscriminately, then anarchy would be the result,” warned Dr Mahathir in his launching speech.

The message was similar to the one taken by local Islamist group Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), which rejected the idea of a “liberal democratic” country, blaming it on a purported global Zionist plot to dilute the identity of Malaysia’s Malay-Muslims.

The group’s deputy president was also reported saying earlier this year that a democracy in which all citizens participate equally is a major obstacle towards making Malaysia an Islamic state.

The movers and shakers

Significantly, the Summit paved the way for Dr Mahathir and Isma to share the same stage, with the latter being a co-organiser together with the Malaysia-Turkey Friendship Foundation (MTF) and the Turkish-Arab Relations Centre.

MTF itself is chaired by Isma’s president Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman, who made headlines for his remark that the ethnic Chinese were “intruders” of Malay land brought by British colonials to oppress the Malays, for which he has since been charged with sedition.

Isma has already been accused of racism and extremism in its approach, which detractors claim is a facade built on the group’s claim to be defenders of Muslims and Islam.

On the other hand, the Forum was jointly organised by Japan’s Sasakawa Peace Foundation (SPF), Indonesia’s The Habibie Center, Turkey’s Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research, and Malaysia’s Institut Kajian Dasar.

While SPF dedicates itself to “world peace” and understanding, the rest are widely known for their involvement in issues revolving around justice and civil liberties.

The list of guests further cemented the differences. The Forum’s guest speakers including former Thai foreign minister and Asean secretary-general, Dr Surin Pitsuwan; chief adviser to Turkey’s prime minister, Taha Ohzan; and former Indonesian president Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, who could not make it after being hospitalised.

Meanwhile, the Summit boasted a much longer list of guests, including representatives from Turkey’s AK Party, Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, and Muslim Brotherhood splinter chapters from Jordan and Lebanon.

The cult of Ghannouchi

Despite their differences, the Forum and the Summit shared at least one thing: they were both snubbed by Rachid Ghannouchi, the “intellectual leader” of Tunisian party Ennahda seen by many as the poster boy of a progressive Islamist.

After the series of revolts dubbed the “Arab Spring” in 2011, Ennahda became the first Islamist party to secure power, and Ghannouchi was idolised by both Islamists and Muslim democrats alike.

In a move that shocked its Islamist allies, however, Ennahda formed a coalition government with two secular parties instead of seeking monopoly power for unity’s sake, subsequently drafting a new constitution hailed by many as the most progressive in the Arab world.

Yet the hope pinned on Ennahda quickly faded as it encountered a shock defeat in the country’s general election last month, losing to secular party Nida Tunis that is linked to the old regime.

It was said that the loss and the need to rejuvenate Ennahda had caused Ghannouchi to forego the two events in Kuala Lumpur, both featuring him as their main attraction.

Interestingly, this resulted in a loss of publicity and credibility that would otherwise have been reaped by whichever event featured the 73-year-old leading thinker.

The absence of Ennahda might result in a setback to those hoping for a progressive Islamist movement, especially with local party PAS grappling with an ideological divide in its annual congress this year.

Healthy coincidence?

Through curious chance, both events were held independently of each other yet in the same month, addressing the same issue, and with the same intended star guest in Ghannouchi.

Despite the apparent conflict, however, Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) Malaysia CEO Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah said he welcomed both, insisting that the discussions harken back to the basic teaching of Islam that promotes open discourse and the exchange of ideas.

“I would welcome it as a healthy coincidence that many of us are doing some kind of soul-searching. Given the fact that there is an escalation of some quarters using laws, fatwas and authority in trying to address issues.

“This gives the platform for wisdom to prevail over other methods,” Saifuddin told Malay Mail Online during GMM’s roundtable discussion on “Democrat Islamists” — making it the third of such discussions — also held in the same week as the Summit.

Even Abdullah Zaik was proud that the Summit had managed to bring Muslim figures together, boasting the attendance of “Salafists, secularists, and nationalists” alike to discuss current developments in the Muslim world.

“Our aim was to create a platform where we can encourage discourse and dialogue among leaders and thinkers across Islam,” said Abdullah after the Summit’s closing, as quoted by Isma.