Brookings: Experts - Peter Mandaville

Religion and Political Civility

Peter Mandaville — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Summary:

As communities revise their basic political rules and shape new political institutions, some of the most complex and vexing questions regard religion and what role it should play. On the one hand, there is much to be found in the world’s great religious traditions that strengthens and undergirds citizenship and political civility. Notions of tolerance, compassion, and respect for the rule of law and governing institutions are central to all great faiths.

But difficult issues frequently arise around the question of religion’s role in politics, particularly in the diverse societies that are increasingly the norm in a globalized world. For example, if faith informs public morality, what space is there for those whose religious beliefs are outside the majority—or for non-believers? And while many would agree that religious values can and should infuse political life, the question of whether religious authority has any superior claim to determine or affirm legislation raises a thorny set of issues. What is the appropriate relationship between the state and religious institutions and other faith-based actors? How can the full rights of all citizens—particularly those in the minority—be ensured, and who has the authority to determine the boundaries of citizenship? Given the importance to many of religion and religious values as the fundamental basis for determining right from wrong, what are the respective roles of the state and religious institutions in shaping, implementing, and enforcing both religious norms and secular affairs? Who is authorized to define and speak on behalf of religion? And when, as is inevitable, conflicts do arise over different conceptions of morality, authority, and national priorities, where can we turn to find resources and examples for resolving these disputes judiciously and equitably?

This paper reflects the rich and active discussions that took place on these questions, among others, during the course of the “Long Conversation” on religion, civility, and state-building at the 2012 U.S.-Islamic World Forum.

Download » (PDF)

Downloads

Download "Religion and Political Civility: The Long Conversation"

Authors

Peter Mandaville

Image Source: © Mohamed Abd El Ghany / Reuters

The Full Story Behind the Innocence of Muslims Protests

Peter Mandaville — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Recent protests against U.S. and European embassies in a number of countries in the Middle East and Muslim world have been linked to an Internet video containing strongly negative depictions of the prophet Muhammad. While many Muslims have quite legitimately taken offense at this movie, the various demonstrations and acts of violence we have seen of late cannot be explained exclusively in terms of a perceived slight against strongly held religious beliefs.

It is true that Islam has historically frowned upon visual depictions of Muhammad due to the religion’s strong aversion to idolatry, but in this case that particular factor is compounded–if not outweighed altogether–by the deeply offensive portrayal of Islam’s final prophet in the film in question. Muhammad is shown as an opportunistic womanizer and homosexual who connives in acts of pedophilia and murder. In this sense, the current video represents the latest installment in a chain of such depictions over the past 25 years–such as the Danish Cartoon Crisis of 2005 and the Satanic Verses Affair of 1988–that have given offense to Muslims.

Authors

Peter Mandaville

Publication: British Council

The Unexceptional Islamists

Peter Mandaville — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0400

For decades, U.S. foreign policy discourse has been haunted by the idea that there is something categorically different about Islamist political parties. So much so that they need to be thought about, treated, and engaged differently than other political groups with equally strong ideological commitments -- like capitalists, leftists, or green parties. In practice this has led to an assumption that the United States has generally been unwilling to do business with Islamists as a matter of policy. While Iran's 1979 revolution no doubt looms large as a specter here, the policy orientation in question actually traces back most directly to a famous dictum offered by Ed Djerejian -- then Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs -- in 1992. This was in the aftermath of an Algerian election in which Islamists had been poised to win a landslide victory only to see the results annulled by the country's army. An Islamist victory at the ballot box, Djerejian argued, would likely have proven to be a case of "one man, one vote, one time." That is, Islamists would make instrumental use of elections to capture the state, but then dismantle the democratic system once in power to ensure they could never be removed.

The reality of U.S. policy practice around the question of Islamist engagement, however, has always been more complex. We tend to remember and point to those incidents and moments that seem to confirm the general rule of U.S. animosity toward Islamists. Washington's reaction to the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, in which Hamas won a controlling majority, is frequently cited as a prime example of this orientation. But even here things are more complicated than they perhaps seem. While many observers saw the U.S. reaction as evidence that the United States cannot do business with Islamists, the consternation in Washington actually stemmed from a combination of the fact that a legally designated terrorist group was poised to form the Palestinian Authority's government -- with all manner of entailing complications for U.S. financial assistance and diplomatic relations -- and the usual concerns about Israel and the collapse of the United States' preferred Fatah faction.

Read the full article at foreignpolicy.com »

Authors

Peter Mandaville

Publication: Foreign Policy

America's Egypt Quandary

Peter Mandaville — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:00:00 -0400

With the seating of a new Egyptian president, it is tempting to focus on the forward momentum of that country's transition and an imminent return to civilian rule. Indeed, over much of the past year, Washington has banked on the idea that the military council ruling the country since Mubarak's ouster is eager to relinquish power sooner rather than later. Its mishandling of key aspects of the transition were largely dismissed as amateurish bungling by soldiers unaccustomed to wielding executive authority. But in the drama leading up to the presidential runoff, there were plenty of signs suggesting that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) is not going away anytime soon, even if -- as they claim -- power will be handed over to the new president by the end of this month.

Over the past fortnight the SCAF has presided over the dissolution of the country's only popularly elected institution, the National Assembly, and reclaimed the legislative mandate for itself. It has also stipulated significant limits to the powers of the newly-elected president and assumed new security powers that rekindle aspects of the draconian Emergency Law that permitted Mubarak to curtail expressions of political opposition for so long. And the revised sequence for the political transition, in which legislative elections will not be held until a new constitution is in place, means that Egyptians will go without an independent, popularly elected political institution for the foreseeable future.

SCAF-skeptics have decried these recent actions as tantamount to a military coup. And they dismiss the presidential succession as all smoke and mirrors on the part of the military: the advent of an executive associated with the revolution provides the illusion of forward progress -- and draws scrutiny away from the military -- even as the SCAF takes measures to ensure that, at least for the time being, ultimate authority with respect to Egypt's finances and security remain firmly in its grip. At the very least it is clear that the generals -- faced with the prospect of a parliament and presidency dominated by Islamists -- felt the need to make a clear statement to the effect that they remain in charge. But as with their actions at previous critical junctures in the transition, this one too looks to be an overstatement. There is also a good prospect that these moves will establish the SCAF as the shared enemy of political forces that heretofore have tended to focus on their differences.

Read the full article at foreignpolicy.com »

Authors

Peter Mandaville

Publication: Foreign Policy

Image Source: Amr Dalsh / Reuters

2012 U.S.-Islamic World Forum

Mon, 28 May 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 28-31, 2012

Qatar
Doha

Read the 2012 working group and long conversation papers »

See the forum agenda for details on sessions and speakers.

The 2012 U.S.-Islamic World Forum, convened by the Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, housed within the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, in partnership with the State of Qatar, took place in Doha, Qatar, on May 29-31. The theme for the forum was, "New Voices, New Directions," emphasizing the challenge of change. Policy makers and officials, thought leaders and activists, and entrepreneurs and journalists met during sessions to facilitate productive dialogue concerning problems faced in U.S. relations with the Islamic world.

In 2011, the forum took place in the midst of the “Arab Awakening” and the dramatic changes that continue to transform the Middle East and North Africa. From Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen, ordinary citizens made possible extraordinary political and social changes. The 2012 forum examined the impact of these changes and continuing challenges posed for Muslim communities around the globe, including in South and Southeast Asia, as well as strategic implications for the United States.

During the three days of the forum there were a variety of formats for candid dialogue and engagement:

A series of keynote speeches at the opening gala dinner from world leaders on the challenges confronting Muslim communities around the globe and their relations with the United States.
Three plenary sessions of fast-paced, in-depth discussions among prominent international figures on broad thematic issues: political, social, and geostrategic change in the Muslim world.
Two panel discussions featuring experts on key issues: the 2012 U.S. presidential elections and the role of arts and culture in social change.
A set of four small working groups that brought together practitioners from specific fields to develop practical partnerships and policy recommendations presented in papers published by the Brookings Institution.
The 2012 signature event, “The Long Conversation,” is an effort to explore the dynamic relationship between citizen, religion, and the state in a changing world. The resulting policy paper incorporates discussion amongst forum participants during this off the record session.

Video

Event Materials

Participants

Panelists

Khaled Abol Naga

Actor, Producer, and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador

Naif Al-Mutawa

Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Teshkeel Media Group

Hossam Bahgat

Founder and Director, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights

Anies Baswedan

Rector, Paramadina University

Endy Bayuni

Senior Editor, Jakarta Post

Saeb Erekat

Chief Negotiator, Palestinian Liberation Organization

Nabil Fahmy

Founding Dean, School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo

William A. Galston

Ezra K. Zilkha Chair and Senior Fellow

Rached Ghannouchi

Co-Founder, Ennahdha

Stephen Grand

Director and Fellow

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Secretary General, Organization of Islamic Cooperation

Martin Indyk

Colin Kahl

Associate Professor, Georgetown University
Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security

Hina Rabbani Khar

Foreign Minister, Pakistan

Dalia Mogahed

Executive Director and Senior Analyst, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies

Saad Mohseni

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, MOBY Group

Rami Nashashibi

Executive Director, Inner-City Muslim Action Network

Iqbal Noor Ali

Senior Advisor, Aga Khan Development Network

Walter Parkes

Film Producer and Writer, Parkes/MacDonald Productions

Kori Schake

Research Fellow, Hoover Institution
Associate Professor of International Security Studies, United States Military Academy

Cynthia Schneider

Nonresident Senior Fellow

Shibley Telhami

Nonresident Senior Fellow

The OIC and the Arab Awakening

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:30:00 -0400

Event Information

March 15, 2012
12:30 PM - 2:00 PM EDT

The Brookings Institution
Washington, DC

On March 15, the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at Brookings hosted Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

As momentous changes have swept across the Arab world over the past two years, the OIC has emerged as an important voice defending the dignity and rights of its citizens. Early last year, the OIC suspended Libya from membership and condemned Muammar Gaddafi's attacks against his own people. It has also established a Human Rights Commission that has emphasized human rights violations in Syria, and repeatedly called attention to the need for international aid to Somalia.

Dr. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu of Turkey took office as the ninth secretary general of the OIC in January 2005. Since joining the OIC in 1980 as founding director general of the Research Centre for Islamic History, Culture and Arts (IRCICA) in Istanbul, Dr. İhsanoğlu has sought to create awareness about Islamic culture across the world through research, publishing, and organizing congresses. He has been recognized as a leading contributor to rapprochement between cultures, particularly between the Muslim and Western worlds.

Dr. İhsanoğlu spoke about the Arab uprisings, the role of the OIC in engaging with and advocating for the rights of Muslim communities outside of the organization’s member states, the challenges in ending the violence in Syria, and the OIC’s efforts at promoting human rights and good governance. Participants of the event included current and former ambassadors, government officials, academics, and journalists.

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Dr. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu

Secretary General, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

Integrating Europe’s Muslims

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:00:00 -0500

Event Information

February 17, 2012
11:00 AM - 12:30 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

Over the next 20 years, Europe’s Muslim population is projected to grow from 17 million to nearly 30 million, which would represent 7 to 8 percent of all Europeans. In his new book, The Emancipation of Europe’s Muslims (Princeton, 2012), Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Jonathan Laurence argues that rising integration problems and fears about terrorism have led governments to assertively step up efforts to engage their Muslim communities and incorporate them into the institutional, political and cultural fabrics of European democracy. However, these governments still have critical steps to take before integration can be judged a success.

On February 17, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) hosted a discussion to explore the integration of Muslims in Europe and how it is linked to the ongoing struggle for religious and political authority in the Muslim-majority world. Finnish Minister for Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja and Professor Peter Mandaville of George Mason University joined Jonathan Laurence in the discussion. Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Omer Taspinar provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion.

After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Participants

Panelists

Peter Mandaville

Associate Professor of Political Science
Founding Director, Center for Global Studies, George Mason University

Erkki Tuomioja

Minister for Foreign Affairs
Republic of Finland

Transformative Partnerships in U.S.-Muslim World Relations

Peter Mandaville — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:49:00 -0400

Introduction:

For nearly a full decade now, issues relating to terrorism, security, and conflict have dominated U.S. relations with the Muslim world. On one level this discussion has simply reflected certain geopolitical realities such as the attacks of September 11, 2001, subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (now extending to parts of Pakistan), ongoing conflict in the Arab world, and the challenge of Iran. Related to, but also transcending, these specific foreign policy challenges has been a renewed discussion of the relationship between Islam and the West. This debate has generally been configured in adversarial terms, with frequent allusions to clashing civilizations and the incompatibility of Islam with secularism and democracy. Since many Americans and Muslims either know very little about each other or harbor considerable misperception, such discussions have tended to sharpen antagonisms and feed the general climate of fear and apprehension that exists on both sides.

A wide range of initiatives have tried to bridge this perceived chasm in recent years, ranging from leadership summits—such as the Brookings U.S.-Islamic World Forum itself—to various public diplomacy and inter-religious dialogue initiatives. Much of this work, however, has been found wanting, with many Muslims complaining that the United States seems only to be interested in terrorism and its own security at the expense of Muslim victims of war and oppression. Even where the U.S. recognizes the plight of Muslims, as in Palestine, it is argued, they do little to help. For their part, Americans express frustration at what they perceive as unwillingness among Muslim leaders to criticize and act proactively against terrorists. Even where intercultural dialogue and strategic communication initiatives show promise, they often end up being held hostage to ongoing military conflicts and to political and economic conditions on the ground throughout the Muslim world.

Many in the Muslim world thus welcomed the election of Barack Obama in 2008 as a significant opportunity. After running for office on a platform that emphasized diplomacy and global engagement in U.S. foreign policy, the new president, speaking in Ankara in April 2009, declared that “America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to Al-Qaeda.” Two months later, in a major speech broadcast from the venerable halls of Cairo’s famed Al-Azhar University, Obama announced that he was seeking

“a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

The issues Obama went on to discuss in the Cairo speech revealed that security concerns were, understandably, still prominent in the minds of U.S. policymakers. Terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and nuclear weapons topped the roster, followed by democracy, religious freedom, and women’s rights. Towards the very end of his remarks, the president turned to the theme of economic development and opportunity. Recognizing that globalization produces both winners and losers and promising a range of new programs relating to entrepreneurship and science/technology, Obama went on to assert that religion and tradition need not be at odds with the search for progress and economic development. In the months following the speech, critics raised many questions about whether the Obama administration was doing enough to fulfill the enormous expectations created in Cairo.3 While it is still too early to pronounce on the progress of a vision barely a year old, its ambition is hardly in doubt.

This discussion paper on “Transformative Partnerships in U.S.-Muslim World Relations: Empowering Networks for Community Development and Social Change,” based on conversations and deliberations at the 2010 U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, picks up where President Obama’s speech ended, namely on the issue of economic and human development. It proceeds from the assumption that the creation of livelihood, opportunity, and positive social change is not only the most effective path towards progress on the other issues raised in Cairo—including security and democracy- but also holds the greatest promise of securing the shared values around which Obama’s vision of U.S.-Muslim world relations was initially framed: justice, progress, tolerance, and dignity.

Read the full paper »

Downloads

Download Full Paper - English

Authors

Peter Mandaville

Brookings: Experts - Peter Mandaville

Religion and Political Civility

Downloads

Authors

The Full Story Behind the Innocence of Muslims Protests

Authors

The Unexceptional Islamists

Authors

America's Egypt Quandary

Authors

2012 U.S.-Islamic World Forum

Event Information

Video

Event Materials

Participants

The OIC and the Arab Awakening

Event Information

Participants

Integrating Europe’s Muslims

Event Information

Audio

Transcript

Event Materials

Participants

Transformative Partnerships in U.S.-Muslim World Relations

Downloads

Authors