Islamic factor no longer scarecrow

photo: Life.com

During the Arab revolutions the world has suddenly discovered that the US is no longer scared by the “Islamic scarecrow”. Moreover, it has found out the US no longer believes dangers coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations like this, realizing that these organizations are influential and popular and can manage their societies and guarantee their stability. However it should have been expected, because the US changes the vector of its Middle East Policy. Obama called on to reset the US relations with the Muslims during his visit to Turkey in April 2009.
The US position also changed because of the drastic social distress in the Arab world, which was caused by the sharp social stratification against the background of the global financial recession. The processes in the Arab world could develop in the way not controlled by the USA; so the USA decided to manage the revolutionary processes instead of impeding them in order to keep these states under control.

This means the US will most probably refuse of supporting undemocratic regimes in the Arab world. But it is unclear if this attitude will touch Azerbaijan. This may happen once, but the “Islamic threat” for Azerbaijan is still discussed by the US experts. E.g. Eugene Chausovsky from Stratfor (US) writes in his article on the possibility of the Egyptian scenario in post-Soviet states that Azerbaijan is another country worth observing, because its government faced pressure even before the Egyptian unrest began. It came from the government’s decision to ban wearing hijabs (Muslim women’s scarves) at school. The decision displeased the religious communities. The situation has remained relatively stable since protests were staged against the decision, but the religious issue is a painful one, causing wide discussions in the society. Moreover, this matter is exploited by external forces, Iran in particular, in order to foment unrest in the country.

Is Stratfor right, warning about the “Muslim danger”? In fact, there are no opportunities of Islamic power in Azerbaijan despite the widespread social discontent. The situation was different in Iran, where religious figures and part of the intelligentsia were the leading revolutionary powers. The opposition mainly rallied around the supranational Islamic Socialism ideas, which were more or less radical in one or another party. The opposition included the Constitutionalists based on Jebhe Melli – the National Front of Iran, which demanded creation of a constitutional monarchy, the Marxists, including Hezbe Tudeyi Iran – the Iranian People’s Party (the biggest left-wing party supported by the USSR), the Islamists, including the Movement for Free Iran headed by the first Prime Minister of post-revolutionary Iran, Mehdi Bazargan, the Struggling Clerics Society headed by Ruhullah Musavi Khomeini, Murtaza Motakkhari, Muhammad Beheshti, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Unlike Iran, most of the Azerbaijani people call themselves Muslims just by tradition. There are no mujtehids (religious scientists having the right of interpreting Koran) in Azerbaijan unlike Iran with its ayatollahs Khomeini, Motakkhari, Beheshti or Rafsanjani. There are also much fewer mosques in Azerbaijan than in Iran (where they became a network of revolutionary circles).

But it is clear Iran will use any chance to strengthen its influence and positions in Azerbaijan. Though there are not many religious radicals in Azerbaijan, and they are not strong enough, they are able to foment an uprising in the way we observed in Tunisia and Egypt.

The International Crisis Group’s report published in September 2010 evaluated Azerbaijan as a state of vulnerable stability. The report analyzed the situation in Azerbaijan and recognized that Ilham Aliyev’s presidency provided stabilization in the country’s political life, but this was accompanied by the increasing authoritarian ruling, suppression of freedoms and domination of the ruling elite in all areas. The opposition is weak and there are very few independent media. The international community has no levers to make the authorities liberalize their regime. The officials suppress any protest and impose self-censorship. This pushes the opposition under ground and fuels the radical religious groups. The unjust distribution of the national wealth and the public distress and disappointment instigate radicalism and instability.

The Islamic Party held a rally of protest against the Schoolgirls’ Hijab Ban on December 10 and thus violated the stability imposed by the authorities, and ignored their rally taboo. This evidently caused the officials to accuse the Islamic Party’s head, Movsum Samedov of terrorist plots to overthrow the government, which was a really fantastic accusation. His deputy, Vaghif Abdullayev and many other believers were also arrested.

But the international community keeps silent – probably not to “undermine the stability”. - (TURAN)