US analyst: Governments should combat rampant corruption, rather than trying to limit religious philosophies

TURAN's Washington DC correspondent has interviewed Catherine Cosman, Senior Policy Analyst with the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, about Muslim andDemocracy, the religious situation in the Central Asia and Caucasus, especially Azerbaijan.
USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan US federal government commission. It's commissioners are appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
USCIRF's principal responsibilities are to review the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally and to make policy recommendations to the US President, the Secretary of State and the Congress.

Question: While reviewing the latest survey from Washington-DC based Pew Research Center which highlights that "Most Muslims Want Democracy, Personal Freedoms, and Islam in Political Life", it is interesting to find out that most Muslims in nations in or close to Central Asia and Middle East want democracy, just more than a year after the first stirrings of the Arab Spring. Where do you come down on those results?

Answer: The Pew Global Survey on recent attitudes in six Muslim-majority countries towards democracy and religion reveals many interesting things, but I will only focus on a few findings. Some people, especially in the West, may find it surprising that most Muslims surveyed by Pew want democracy, but I do not. For one thing, the concepts of democracy -- or rule by the people -- and the Muslim emphasis on the dignity of both the individual and of the community have a lot in common. For another, thousands of protestors in Iran's "Green Revolution" also supported greater democracy in their country. But it is remarkable for a majority in any society to prefer democracy over economic prosperity as is true of Turkey and Lebanon. Perhaps that is because Turkey and Lebanon have had intense and debilitating social and political divisions and even a civil war in Lebanon. These crucial problems could not be addressed adequately or peacefully due to a lack of democratic institutions. From a more positive perspective, I believe this democratic preference in Turkey and Lebanon may also reflect their experience (shared by some other countries surveyed by Pew) with the Ottoman millet system which gave community rights to Muslims, Jews and Christians.
As for the Pew Survey's finding that many people want Islam to play a major public role in these six nations, I believe that this view is an understandable extension of personal religious belief. The key question is how would Islam's public role be defined in law and practice since there are many different concepts and applications of sharia law. Further, in contrast to many Western cliches about Muslim attitudes towards women, the Pew Survey found that majorities in all six Muslim-majority countries believe in gender equality.
As for post-Soviet Muslim-majority countries, seven decades of Soviet rule have had a major impact on these societies. Five of the Pew Survey countries -- except Turkey -- have had to deal with the aftermath of Western colonialism. Perhaps it is the public role of religion where the experiences of the post-Soviet states and the Pew Survey nations are most different. While England and France curbed native traditions and local institutions, their treatment of religion, particularly the majority religion of Islam, did not match Soviet militant atheism. In the early years of Soviet rule tens of thousands of religious leaders were killed or exiled and religious institutions and traditions destroyed. In later years, particularly after World War II, Soviet authorities subverted religious institutions by subjecting them to strict state control and coopted religious officials.
The six countries in the Pew Survey and post-Soviet states do share a long history of political elites which are isolated from the people and a lack of functioning democratic institutions. Through the so-called Arab Spring, citizens in most Arab states have expressed a need for a real public role in their national decision-making processes, including elections. While the collapse of the Soviet Union offered its citizens a brief window onto similar opportunities, unfortunately time has not borne out these hopes.

Question: For many, Islam is increasingly becoming a factor in the politics of the wider Caucasus /Central Asia regions. On the other hand, as we've discussed with you during our previous interviews, a number of believers are being arrested by police for example, in Baku, tensions between the state and religious Muslims have mounted in recent months. Local right defenders insist that religious rights records of Central Asia and Caucasus' dictatorships had deteriorated in the past years. Why is the situation getting worse instead of improving? What are the reasons behind that? What would be your messages to both the politicians and the believers?

Answer: It is natural that Islam has a greater political profile in the Muslim-majority areas of the North and South Caucasus, and in other parts of Russia and throughout Central Asia. After all, governments faced with a post-Soviet ideological vacuum are searching for ways to define national identities and the majority religion of Islam seems to be an easy way to do that. At the same time, however, as a Central Asian friend told me, the continuing personal search for religious expression is one of the most precious post-Soviet experiences. Individual and official definitions and explorations of religion, however, may be tense and difficult, particularly since government officials may also view Islam as a potential alternative source of popular legitimacy or even as a possible rival for political power. In addition, most post-Soviet political elites are still dominated by people educated under the Soviets and so usually are ignorant and/or suspicious of religion. Perhaps that is why a highly managed and controlled type of secularism predominates in most post-Soviet states. Unfortunately, all these factors taken together have resulted in highly restrictive religion laws which include many provisions that violate international human rights norms.
Since you represent an Azerbaijani news agency, I should highlight some of the numerous problems in your 2009 religion law: the basis for possible bans on religious organizations; denial of legal status to unregistered religious organizations along with the requirement that registered religious communities re-register; numerous vague new registration requirements, including doctrinal and other tests left to the discretion of state officials; religious activity - and even the sale of religious literature - restricted to officially approved premises; and religious communities required to receive state permission so as to engage in the religious education of children or adults. Indeed, many international organizations, including the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, were critical of the 2009 Azeri religion law when it was still in draft form.
Unfortunately, the Azeri government has ignored such criticism and continues to pass and consider restrictive new laws -- most recently on religious literature. All this has resulted in creating a newly negative climate for religious freedom in Azerbaijan. Muslim (both Shia and Sunni) communities and numerous Protestant congregations have been denied continued legal status (the Greater Grace Protestant Church) or even subjected to police raids. Azeri authorities have also destroyed or closed mosques in Baku and Ganja.
This religion law (along with numerous other restrictions) was passed even though Azerbaijan justly prides itself on being the world's first secular Muslim-majority state. Azerbaijan, however, does not follow the so-called "passive" secularism that allows peaceful religious expression a public role. Azerbaijan also does not follow "active" secularism (which to some extent Turkey still follows) that tries to control the public role of religion. Rather, Azerbaijan and other post-Soviet governments follow "over- active" secularism in which the state acts as if it has the sole right to control and restrict all aspects of religious life. Perhaps many post-Soviet states have decided that their citizens will usually make the wrong decisions without governmental guidance.
Reportedly, the Azeri parliament is now considering a law requiring that religious and other literature must have a special Tax Ministry stamp before it can be sold. Those who violate this possible new requirement will face criminal penalties. My simple message to post-Soviet governments is that they should respect the rights and good common sense of their citizens. My message to Muslims is Mubarak Ramadan!

Question: The Pew survey also found out that the extremist groups are largely rejected in predominantly Muslim nations. Although the survey didn't cover former soviet countries, but in the Caucasus, Central Asia there is an ongoing dilemma re: the governments' fight against extremism and the religious rights. The official propaganda is that the extremism is rising in the region and therefore the government forces are arresting the believers, preventing the new religious movements. But local rights defenders insist that there is a huge gap re: the detained believes and it's really unclear whether they have been even tending to the extremism or just doing their religious routine. How do you see the solution of this problem? What should the governments and average people in the region know about the extremism and the Islam?

Answer: Ignorance and idleness is a mixture that may lead to extremist violence. If someone is ignorant about a religion or philosophy and if he or she does not have the opportunity to spend time in a useful way, then they may be attracted to radical and intolerant views and possibly to committing violent acts. For many decades in the post-Soviet world, access to all religious traditions, including of course, Islam, was forbidden and later distorted. Sadly, today popular access to certain non-violent schools of Islam is still controlled by the state. In the post-Soviet world, education levels have fallen and unemployment or underemployment, especially among the young, is high. Many families have been broken up due to labor migration, particularly by working-age men to Russia. Therefore, governments should be addressing these real social and educational problems and combating rampant corruption, rather than trying to limit religious philosophies to those they find easier to control.
Some post-Soviet states, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan share borders and ethnic links with Iran and/or Afghanistan and they often blame domestic problems on their difficult neighbors. This is not to deny that certain radicalizing influences do seep in, including via the Internet, but such influences usually find fertile ground mainly where ignorance and idleness flourish.
In fact, extremism laws in most post-Soviet nations do not usually even include the criterion of advocacy or use of violence. Therefore, groups and literature can be officially banned merely for expressing views that the government does not like. And if the government claims that an individual belongs to a banned group, he or she is liable for a long prison term, sometimes, as in Uzbekistan, for up to 15 years! In recent years, for example, several post-Soviet states have banned the writings of Turkish theologian Said Nursi and his followers have been imprisoned, arrested and harassed. Through overly restrictive registration requirements, governments can also exclude disfavored religious groups.

Question: What should the Islamists in Azerbaijan and Central Asia know to make sure that their religious rights are not being used politically by the Islamic movements of Iran, Turkey and other countries?

Answer: I was told by an independent Muslim leader in Tajikistan that he had asked colleagues in Iran why they did not defend the legitimate rights of Muslims in Tajikistan. He contrasted Iranian silence with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's criticism of various highly restrictive Tajik laws on religion. He did not get an answer, but perhaps it is partly to be found in the fact that most Tajiks are Sunni while most Iranians are Shi'a.