 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
George Bush Divides US or us?By Abul Kasem When John Kerry, after conceding his defeat in the recently held election, called President Bush he reminded George Bush of the deep chasm that has engulfed the American nation like nothing before. George Bush agreed with John Kerry. It looks like this division is now spread all parts of the world, except of course, to the Muslim World. The Muslim World was solidly behind John Kerry. Even the ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia, who often chastises Western leaders for meddling in his personal property (i.e., Malaysia), shamelessly harangued the Muslim Americans not to vote for George Bush. To him, lecturing the citizens of the USA on how to vote is not interfering in the domestic affairs of the US, but it is his religious duty to rid the world of the disciple of the Great Satan. Did George Bush admonish the self-appointed 21st. century Khalifa of the Muslims? No, he did not. He simply kept quiet, preferring to let the American people decide. Imagine what the new Caliph of the Muslim Ummah would do if George Bush would have asked the Malaysians not to vote the ex-Prime Minister during an election in Malaysia! During the election campaign Gorge Bush was portrayed as a liar, a war-monger, a Muslim-hater, a Christian fundamentalist, a moron, the lowest I.Q President, a Texan Cow-boy and whatnot. So why did the Americans vote in drove this Christian fundamentalist, a belligerent, a non-apologist and a dunce for the White house for a second term? Let me ponder on this matter, remembering the Australian election which was held just a month ago (9th October, 2004). While I may not be very familiar with the American politics, I can, perhaps, relate this bizarre American voter attitude from the example of the Australian voters. The Australians re-elected John Howard�s conservative party (the Liberals) for the fourth time defying the pundit�s prediction (from polls, of course) of a comfortable, if not a land-slide, victory for the Labor Party of Australia (ALP). The readers may draw an analogy between these two dominant parties of Australia with that of the two major parties of the USA thus:
The Australian Liberal Party = the Republicans of the USA The Australian Labor Party = the Democrats of the USA.
The incumbent Prime Minister John Howard was a Liberal candidate in this election. The opposition was portrayed him as a liar, a war-monger, an enemy of the Muslims, a dullard, a racist, a Christian bigot--simply because he refused to call back the Australian troops from the war-ravaged Iraq. He is uncompromising in chasing the Islamic Terrorists. He wants to catch them and punish them with full force of the law. While the Australian Labor Party was somewhat ambivalent on Islamic Terrorism, John Howard is absolutely unyielding in dealing with them. He will not hesitate to go to war with his neighboring countries if Islamic Terrorists attack Australia from their bases from any one of these countries�that is his stand�crystal clear. When the election result was announced John Howard won the election with more seats in the Parliament than the previous poll. Not only that but he also won a comfortable majority in the Senate which will enable him to pass new laws (to contain terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism) with extreme ease. Seems like an exact duplicate situation of the USA, isn�t it? When the election was over I heard many BD Muslims calling the Australians �stupid� for electing an enemy of Islam as the Prime Minister of Australia. They preferred Mark Latham, the opposition Leader and a candidate of the Australian Labor party, who, as a sign of his love for the Muslims, even nominated Ed Husic, a �non-practicing� Muslim as a candidate for a Sydney suburban electorate. For the last couple of decades this electorate had always been won by a Labor candidate. There was absolutely no way that this �non-practicing Muslim� would lose the election� every one thought. If that happened then Australia would probably have its first �non-practicing Muslim� in the Federal Parliament. The result? Ed, Husic the �non-practicing Muslim� lost the election. He created a history�because, hitherto, no Labor candidate for this area had lost election. The liberal candidate, who is associated with Church-work won the election, albeit, with a thin majority. This was a great windfall for John Howard to say the least. So, why the �stupid� Australians re-elected to power a dullard, war-monger John Howard and his party? Was it that John Howard suddenly became the darling of the Australian voters because he is a �Christian Fundamentalist?� After all, he is a regular church attendee and espouses good Christian values. Of late, he became very unpopular on domestic issues, such as: education, Medicare, taxation�etc. So, how such a not-so-popular Prime Minister could get elected? The answer is not difficult to fathom. You see, many
Australians who religiously voted for the Australian Labor Party on previous
elections changed their mind this time. They voted for the Liberal, forsaking
the better policies of the Labor on domestic matters. This time around, the
foremost concern in the minds of the most Australians was the issue of
security at home and the growing threat from the Islamic Terrorists. The
Australian electorate was savvy enough to realize the potential danger in
trusting a �flip-flop� Labor party in dealing with the security of Australia.
At the top in the minds of the voters were the images of the Bali bombing of
October, 2002 and the recent terrorist bombing of the Australian Embassy at
Jakarta. How can the great majority of Australians, who had experienced the
barbarism of Islamic Terrorism hand over the matter security of their country
to a vacillating, non-focused, apologetic, compromising and unclear policies
of the Labor Party?�most Australians thought deeply. They were simply confused
and uncertain about the policies of the Labor party on internal security of
their peaceful country. I was such a confused voter who eventually voted for the Liberal. In the last three Federal elections I always voted for the Labor�no matter what policy they had. But this time I changed my mind when the Labor declared that they would withdraw the Australian troops from Iraq (if they won the election), would make somewhat concessions to the terrorists (they called it reaching out for the disgruntled and the oppressed). It was enough for me. I had to change my mind because:
When I traveled to work by train I remembered the Madrid bombing. When I entered the multi-storied office building I recalled the 9/11. When I entered a pub or a busy restaurant I remembered Bali�Kuta Beach resort. When my son, a child, goes to his school I remembered Beslan massacre of the innocent kindergarten children. When my wife goes to shopping in the biggest shopping complex in Sydney I worry about her return. �������������. And so on.
Such was the mental anxiety for most Australian voters regardless of their party affiliation and the principles they stood for. They could not trust a party which would compromise with the security of Australia. That was why John Howard was the clearest choice for the electorate. It was his indomitable and uncompromising stand on the terrorists who want to kill the Australians with merciless vigor and destroy their way of life, simply because they are infidels. It is interesting to note that the Labor Party of Australia expected the new young voters to vote overwhelmingly for them. But that did not happen either. The election result demonstrated that the vast majority of the first-time voters--many of them university �freshies��a Labor vote-bank abandoned the Labor Party; instead, they voted either the Liberals or the Greens, a small �environmental� party. This deprived the Labor the victory that they were almost certain. Many irreligious persons, atheists, secularists, leftists, socialists, communists voted for the Liberals too, knowing very well John Howard�s support for the Church and the Christian schools. Previously, they could have never thought of voting for a �dullard� and a �dross�, Johnny--to put it mildly.
It is not surprising that same pattern of voting was reflected in the US election. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay that the result of the Presidential election in the USA has divided not only the US society but also the world. It is no wonder to witness this division in many cyber forums like MM, Vinnomot, FFI just to name a few. Some members of such forums openly supported John Kerry (or George Bush) and transformed their website as an election propaganda platform. When the Republicans won the election many members in the opposite camp were disappointed, hurt and angry. Some of them even suggested that the re-election of George Bush will encourage more terrorism, more Islamic fundamentalism. This translates into more bloodshed and mayhem�according to them. Some of them even suggest that President George Bush has turned himself into a Christian fundamentalist waging Crusade against the Muslims. While I guess most Americans are religious, still America is the most staunchly secular country in the world. Same goes for Australia. Though the vast majority of the Australians are Christians and quite religious, the secular nature of Australia, including all its secular laws remain intact no matter which party is in power. No party can change this status of Australia�not even John Howard, even though he had a very good support from many Church based parties. I think America stands exactly in the same position. The secular nature of America can never change�not even in a few centuries. Therefore, the thought of Christian fundamentalism and Crusade are simply far-fetched and ill-motivated. George Bush and John Howard are doing simply their duties to their citizen�protect them at any cost�fight fire with fire, if need be. I must say that if anyone is responsible for the perceived rise of Christian fundamentalism it is actually due to the ascent of Islamic fundamentalism for the last few decades. When the Christians, the Hindus, the Buddhists find that they are being attacked, killed, burned and tortured by the Islamic Terrorists they have no choice but to turn to the parties that promise complete security to them. Ordinary people cannot depend upon the incomprehensible hypothesis of the liberals and the philosophical doctrines of the leftists. They need to protect themselves first�even if that means to resort to the use of force. That is why we see the rise of the Hindu fundamentalists in India in BJP and the rise of the extreme rightists in other countries, such as Austria, the Netherlands�etc. Violence begets violence�it is as simple as this. And it is Islamic Terrorism that started it all. Remove Islamic Terrorism from the face of the earth and you will find no other religious fundamentalism/terrorism. Christian, Hindu or Budddhist fundamentalisms are the reaction of Islamic Terrorism perpetrated by the Muslim fundamentalists-- let�s face this truth. Islamic Terrorism cannot be removed through dialogue or negotiation. These terrorists do not believe in give-and-take--the very fundamental of any negotiation process. In fact, the terrorists consider an offer of negotiation as a sign of weakness�a time for a brief respite�a good opportunity to re-plan and execute further genocide and mayhem to establish Islamic Paradises in world. Anyone who offers an olive branch to the terrorists is simply drawing more Trojan Horses into his backyard. Finally, I would like to stress the importance of maintaining a bystander�s attitude in a cyber forum. It is unwise for an Internet forum to be brazenly partisan. A forum is not a political party. Members of these forums come from diverse backgrounds and they are spread around the globe. Just because they are in agreement with a few policies/ideas/philosophy does not mean that all of them must agree with the political, cultural and domestic issues of any or all countries. As an example: During the next Singapore election which political party should MM or Vinnomot support�PAP (People�s Action Party) or the opposition Workers Party? Surely, this is a contentious issue and it will be imprudent and childish to openly advertise for any one party. If a certain member writes anything about any party let that be only his personal opinion. The moderators and the key members of the group should, as far as possible, keep silence on the election issue. This, I think, should be a wise approach. It will prevent the unnecessary, hurt feeling, anger, frustration and jealousy in the forum.
-------------- Abul Kasem writes from Sydney. His e-mail address is [email protected] |
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
||||