The
birth of the Eurozone was hailed as a successful model of unity. It sought to
accumulate Europe's economic and political power, into one block. With years of
meticulous work, the formation of this block, came with a multitude of
advantages for businesses and investors, promising to promote both trade and
travel, through some uniformity of laws and ease of mobility throughout the
zone; and this economic unity, also invariably implied 'aggregated' political
power in decision making in world events.
In
the Muslim world, the debate on the role and importance of unity now had an
additional reference points, i.e. the EU. The 'Organization of Islamic
Conference' known as the OIC had primarily been the focal point for discussions
on unity of Muslim nation states. The OIC has for years, served as a vent for
the political opinions of the Muslim Nations. The platform provides a means for
Muslim-majority nations to come together, and discuss various issues, ranging
from politics to trade and commerce. It also over the years passed several
resolutions voicing the opinion of the Muslim nations. However, the OIC,
despite expressing the desire for greater unity, had made little progress in
articulating a roadmap to achieve it. The formation of EU and its adoption of
single currency have been looked up at, by various academics and opinion-makers
in the Muslim world, who have sighted it as an example for the Muslims to
replicate.
The
EU today is a union of independent Nation-states, which all embrace a common
model of governance i.e. Democracy and are essentially capitalist states. On
the other hand, the Muslim world has a range of governance types, from
dictatorships -with either ruling Monarchs or Generals- to democracies. While
the governance Model in the EU, i.e. Democracies enjoy indigenous support and
greater stability, the regimes in the Muslim world, remain gripped in political
instabilities in various degrees.
Today,
as the Muslim world yearns, for unity, it is imperative, to critically evaluate
any models of unity which may be presented to her as adoptable alternatives. At
present, primarily two specific models of unity are often discussed, one if the
EU and the other is that of an Islamic State, i.e. Caliphate.
The
EU is primarily a voluntary union of sovereign states, in wich member states
have democracies, where elections can affect the political decisions made by
the state. These decisions may be made independent of the benefits or effects
on other member states. Hence the union in essence, is for a 'win-win'
situation, where common interests are what bind the member states. Contrary to
this the Islamic State's model of unity, is centralized. It's neither a union
nor a federation. Member 'states' (lands) effectively merge within the Islamic
State, and are hence designated as 'Wilaya' (Province). A Wilaya, cannot opt to
disembark from the central state, and hence, this ensures that pursuit of local
interests cannot dent the overall interests of the State.
Currency
is another key factor in any model of unity. The common currency, Euro, adopted
by member states, is used in parallel to the local currencies. While this comes
with advantages, it also creates complexities. The Islamic State, has singular
currency, backed by gold (& silver), and hence, its value is not
susceptible, unlike FIAT currency. The singular currency ensures that wealth
throughout the state has an even representation, and is not subject to any
internal imbalances.
In
the EU model, which is based on a union of democracies, the adherence to rules
of the union can be terminated, if the citizens of any state, no longer accept
to abide by them. In an Islamic state, the 'Wilaya' (Provinces) do not have
their independent status, and therefore, adherence to rules is mandatory.
In
Today's world, with global trade and commerce, often the economies of countries
are interconnected. This inter-connection is fortified, when countries assist
each other through loans, bail-out packages, and investments etc. For example,
the current problems in Europe can have an effect on the US, and it is for this
reason, that Presidential candidates in this election year are eager to resolve
the crises. In the recent G8 summit, in a bilateral talk between Obama, and
David Cameron, the UK Prime Minster, stated that he detected a "growing
sense of urgency that action needs to be taken" on the Eurozone crisis. In
contrast, the Islamic State, will seek to have a robust economy that is least
dependent on other major economies. It will not engage in interest-based loans
with other countries; It will avoid any investment venture in stocks of other
economies, and will not lend assistance – e.g. in the form of bailouts – to
other economies, based on capitalist principles.
In
the union, sovereign states pursue their own interests along with the mutual
interests. However, interests of one Member State may eclipse that of another.
For example Germany, which has Europe's relatively larger economy, imposed
tight austerity, measures as criteria for International loans, to relatively
small economies in the zone, such as Greece. According to critics, these
policies resulted in fueling unemployment in Greece, and pushing it to near
bankruptcy, and in Italy and Spain, it had added to the already existing
crises. An Islamic state, on the other hand, is not prone to such skewed and
biased policies. The accumulated wealth of the state, is put to effective use,
and shared on need basis. A wealthier 'Wilaya' cannot impose its policies on
poor or less wealthy 'Wilaya' by influencing the center. This ensures that
generally and in particular at times of crises, the single unit state, acts as
'one for all and all for one'.
In
a union, there is a possibility, that the people may vote a new government,
which representing its electoral vote bank, chooses to ignore the promises made
by previous governments. In such a scenario, the center, cannot force it, to
abide by the promise of previous government. For e.g. in Spain, the new
government, led by Prime Minster, Mariano Rajoy, stated its government did not
feel bound by the 'adjustment programme' which were agreed by the previous
administration. This stance was rebuked. However, in essence, it carried
weight; and the 'Adjustment Programme' for Spain, was being considered to be
made more lenient. A Caliphate structurally is not prone to such weakness,
because the Caliph, has the legal authority to ensure, merger states, comply by
the rules agreed upon.
The
EU, is technically designed on the assumption that a member state will not
consider departure from the union, because the cost of it will be high, as
compared to the benefits of staying with the Union. However, recent events,
especially in the case of Greece, indicate that this assumption may not
perpetually hold valid. An overburdened state, unable to meet its obligations
to the union may consider an exit as advantageous. In an Islamic State, the
burden (needs of citizens) is shared horizontally amongst the merger states.
Daniel
Gros, Director of Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies, recently
wrote on the crises facing EU that "Financial
markets have reacted as strongly as they have because investors recognize that
the "sovereign" in sovereign debt is an electorate that can simply
decide not to pay.". On the contrary, Islam's model of unity,
i.e. the Caliphate, embodies a political and economic system, that provide a
stable environment for investors.
In
a recent Editorial on '21st May 2012', M. A. Niazi (Editor, The Nation
newspaper), had made a valid point, by stating that "there does not seem any intrinsic reason why a
Caliphate cannot be established. It's not as if Indonesians have horns on their
heads, or Algerians breathe nitrogen instead of oxygen. We've had experience of
living in a federation with other nationalities, so why can't we have a
Caliphate".
Today,
while there is a huge potential, for economic growth, and political power, much
of the Muslim world, remains mired in a plethora of problems. Discussions on
need for greater cooperation are often restricted within the apparatus of OIC
or other groupings, which so far have failed to effectively deliver. As the
debate for greater unity gains momentum, it is imperative for the
intellectuals, opinion-makers and key power holders to approach this topic with
sincerity, and critically evaluate all models of unity which are presented to
it.
by Sharique Naeem ( shariq_n@hotmail.com
)
References:
[1]
EU -http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/06/201263112548566574.html
[3]
Editorial - http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/lahore/21-May-2012/defining-a-terrorist
