The Clinton puff: The immoderate thing about moderate demands

Beneath the glamor was shallow policy lacking courage and vision

Farish A Noor

EDITOR'S PICK Now that Hillary Clinton has come to Malaysia and praised the country for being a ‘moderate’ Muslim country, one is forced to ask the simple question of how the term moderate is deployed and used instrumentally in politics.

That Clinton can refer to Malaysia and other Muslim-majority countries as moderate is of course not simply a casual observation. To call a country moderate is not like calling water wet or apples sweet. It is a politically overdetermined signifier that brings with it a chain of other significations and meanings — blatant or implied — and as such also has a political and ideological ring to it. In the context of a post-11 Septermber world that has witnessed the resurgence of American power (if you dont believe me, go ask the Afghans) and a host of other discourses of power (such as the bogus ‘anti-terror’ industry/business/takeaway franchise) we need to take such statements as more than the glib observations of a tourist impressed by the duty free shops at KLIA.

So when Hillary Clinton talks about Malaysia and other Muslim states as being ‘moderate’ what does this mean and imply? Does it imply that there are some other Muslim states that are not moderate? Yes. And who might they be? Well at the moment leading the non-moderate loony-fundo evil axis threat seems to be dastardly Iran (as usual). Not far behind come some other potentially wobbly states like Pakistan, Afghanistan and perhaps even Indonesia.

But wait — What about Egypt, Jordan, Syria and of course Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states? Interestingly, by some obscure and unaccountable quirk of history or tarot cards these states rarely get a mention in the hall of infamy. Despite the fact that NGOs like Amnesty International have, for decades, complained about the flagrant and blatant abuses of human rights there. Why? Is it a coincidence that the United States government — which declares its support for universal human rights — does not mind having as one of its allies a country where women are not allowed to drive? Is it a coincidence that Egypt happens to be one of the biggest recipients of American foreign aid?

‘Moderation’ therefore seems to be more than simply subjective and relative according to context. Interestingly, those Muslim governments that purchase American arms and facilitate the work of American oil companies rarely earn the label of being ‘immoderate’ Muslim states. The mind boggles...

Then there is the second question about just how and why all this talk of moderation has to do almost exclusively with Muslim societies and Islam. When a cursory view of the state of world affairs will show us that immoderate loony fundos exist all over the planet, and come in manifold hues and shades: There are Hindu extremist fundos in India who seem happy going on a rampage, there are Christian fundamentalist fundos who likewise enjoy the odd bit of mayhem, there are Buddhist fundos who dont mind picking up the gun once in a while. While even in secular Western Europe there seem to be secular atheist fundos who are quite happy to sing happy birthday Hitler on the fellow’s birthday. From Swastikas to burning crosses, Fundo-loonies come in all shapes and sizes, so why the concern only for Islam and Muslims?

It is this lopsidedness that lends an air of incredulity and hypocrisy to Clinton’s visit and her concern about the state of moderation in the country.

Extremism of all kinds — including racism, misogyny, caste prejudice, nationalism gone rampant, are all destructive instances of emotionalism and raw hate unleashed in the public domain. And sadly our world ain’t a happy place today and there are plenty of religious and secular nutters out there I can tell you. (I study Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist fundamentalism and sadly, its pandemic, mates.)

To single out Islam as a thing to be corrected and a thing to be moderated simply betrays the agenda of Clinton and the gang in Washington for what it is: A rather crude attempt to bring about some sort of social engineering on a massive global scale by utilising the same boring tactics of divide and rule (‘Good Muslims’ versus ‘Bad Muslims’) and to wield a massive carrot and a massive stick. But in such instances it is realpolitik that is the overriding motivator and agent of change, and not society itself.

Politicians — of all nations — are a rather dumb lot who think that by prattling away at conferences in expensive hotels they can get away with such nonsense. (I tell you if she was in my class today Clinton would get an F minus.) This is mediatic spin, simple mediatic manipulation for the sake of political ends. But sadly the course of human history is not that easy a thing to guide and control.

Yes, religious extremism and religious violence is a real problem and no sane person would deny that. But let us not use this as an excuse for another round of pathetic Muslim-bashing and the pathologisation of Islam as if it was a problem. The problem lies with politics, power and the abuse of belief-systems by politicians for the sake of power. Popping sugar-cubes into the mouths of Muslim politicians is not going to make their societies ‘moderate’, and it ain’t going to make the world love America any more either. But shame on those who still believe that such discourse is even worth listening to in the first place. - I though the age of fairy-tales was over long ago.