Let us admit one thing. The political reality is, if PAS wants to take over the central government in the 2007 or 2012 election, the need to repeatedly call for an Islamic state must be re-evaluated.

Those who are not yet convinced about the beauty of an Islamic state will never give PAS the much needed majority votes if the call for such a state is continuously thumped upon them in its current form.

Even the opposition coalition will not be as solid if the Islamic state issue is not properly resolved.

This is no fault of the electorates who rejected PAS. The blame of the opposition party's dire condition today and the fear towards the Islamic state, in addition to it being a symptom of worldwide Islamophobia, should rest squarely on the shoulders of PAS.

One of the mistakes was publishing the Islamic state document without firstly conducting a careful and detailed study on how the electorates will react. Let me clarify. The publication of such a document is perhaps necessary but it should never have been done without a detailed consideration of the public's reaction and proper preparation to respond to that very reaction.

Let us face it. No serious political party would ever publish such a crucial policy document without carefully studying the repercussions. PAS did not study it seriously, did not tailor the document for the multi-religious Malaysian public and did not prepare for the repercussions.

I went through the document again for the umpteenth time last night and I still cannot see how PAS will ever win the majority votes of the non-Muslims with such a document in the background.

It was rich in Quranic texts and seriously lacking in policy explanation. The document officially confirms PAS as an exclusive party for the religious Muslims, and put off not only non-Muslims but also Muslims who view Islam as a private matter and do not see it as deen (way of life) and daulah (state).

Lack of clarity

And this is why I sympathise with those newly elected to hold higher positions in PAS. The hope pinned on them is colossal, to say the least. PAS members want the party to change and they expressed this by electing new faces to hold the top posts.

But I remain uncertain as to which direction the party intends to go, and to what extent does the party want to change. There is a lack of clarity about the two aspects.

There were hardly any comments about the leadership of the incumbent president. Why is it that the members' frustrations were directed towards the deputy president but no one said anything about the president? They both took up the posts at around the same time and both had about the same amount of time to work on the party. Why is it that the buck stops at the number two post and not higher? Why the focus on changing everyone but the president?

I would like to believe that the reason behind this is the members' confidence in the leadership of Abdul Hadi Awang. I suppose members have no doubt that he is the one who will enable both Muslims and non-Muslims to give the majority vote to PAS in the elections to come.

And surely PAS members have no doubt that if his name is put forward as prime minister in waiting, (or deputy prime minister in waiting if Anwar Ibrahim is named as PM), then Malaysians would have no qualms to vote PAS into power. Surely these are the reasons.

For sure it is not because no one has a solid answer as to what the actual "change" should entail.

If PAS is serious about changing, then this whole methodology of simultaneously being an Islamic movement and a political party in one go should be re-evaluated. The concept needs an updated interpretation. As it stands, PAS' interpretation puts being a political party over and above everything else that is expected of an Islamic movement.

Yes, an Islamic movement does need to play an active role in politics. An Islamic movement needs to have a big role in shaping the land's political scene. Any organisation that does not take politics as one of its ultimate aims - like many Islam-based NGOs - does not qualify to be an Islamic movement. If politics is left out, then the organisation would no longer be syumul (complete), thus disqualifying it from being an Islamic movement.

But politics must never be seen as the end all and be all.

Politics superceding other elements

The way PAS currently work puts many things as subservient to its political agenda. Tarbiyah (education) is being handled by just one of the bureau within the central working committee. The same applies to welfare and outreach (da'wah). Whenever political demands conflict with the demands of other things that an Islamic movement is expected to do, then more than once it is the political imperatives that take priority.

Let us take the recent party election as an example.

As I stated above, the call for PAS to change was heard loud and clear by everyone. But no one has so far given a proper definition as to what this 'change' means. If we were to look at the content of the debates taking place in the muktamar (annual general assembly), the so called 'change' seems to centre around wanting to make PAS the political party more electable.

And, for some reason, the delegates seem to feel that the electability of a party depends more on the who-holds-what-post rather than the vision of each candidate. The changes seem to have been made solely in the hope that these new faces would make PAS electable.

There were hardly any discussions on who can strengthen the party's education, welfare or da'wah. In other words, the consideration was "who can make PAS stronger as a political party". The question "who can strengthen PAS as an all-encompassing and intellectually robust Islamic movement" was not mentioned so much. There was limited discussion on what can make PAS-the-Islamic-movement stronger.

There is a standardised answer when this type of argument is put forward by PAS' critiques. I know, because I am one of those who keep giving the standardised answers every time others criticise PAS. That standardised answer is: PAS is an Islamic movement with politics as its main component but PAS never ignores the other elements of Islam. By aiming for political power, and strengthening our political base, we ensure that we can do all else required by Islam.

This standardised answer no longer holds water. The fact is, politics has become so overpowering in PAS that many other elements has been unintentionally sidelined.

Education and the Islamic movement

To take just one example, look at the state of tarbiyah (education) in PAS. Look at the state of schools sponsored by PAS. Look at the education programmes being run by PAS at university student level. Look at the education programme being run by PAS at branch levels. They are haphazard, unsystematic and disorganised. Worse still, no one at the higher level seems to be seriously doing anything about it. Everybody is focused on politics.

A serious Islamic movement would never allow its education system (tarbiyah) to be in such a disorder. It is education that produces steadfast Islamic workers. It is education that produces sincere politicians who will not budge when tempted with wealth or power. It is education that produces truthful and charismatic leaders of the future.

(I am not going to go too deep into this example since many would then come back to me arguing that education can be done in many ways; education must be flexible; education this and education that. I am just going to say that education in PAS is in a sorry state. )

To get a better picture, compare the internal education system and the internal education machinery with the election machinery. When it comes to an election, you will see PAS in full-swing mode. They are efficient and sharp. The central control is swift and the top-leaders' commitment is insurmountable. The same cannot be said about PAS' education machinery.

Conflicts of fikrah

I now want to move on to a slightly more technical example to illustrate how PAS is no longer giving precedence to strengthening its Islamic movement credentials.

For an Islamic movement, the issue of fikrah is a matter of utmost importance. It is difficult to find the exact English word for fikrah as it covers so many different aspects of the thought process. But I am going to risk translating fikrah as 'the way by which one perceives an issue'.

Thus, fikrah Islamiyah would mean 'the way by which one perceives Islam' and fikrah PAS would mean 'the way by which one perceives PAS'. For example, if I were to explain what fikrah PAS means to me, I would say "PAS is the one and only Islamic movement in Malaysia which we as Muslims must support". That is the way I view PAS.

I said that the issue of fikrah is of utmost importance for an Islamic movement because it defines the movement in the eyes of its followers. If people see PAS as an Islamic movement, then they will support it despite any weaknesses, and try to work from within to patch up any problems. But if people see PAS purely as a political organisation, then they are free to switch camps as and when necessary.

If we were to look a bit more into PAS and its new line-up, we will see contradictions. During the last muktamar, several delegates raised the importance of unity and purity of fikrah as a pillar of strength. Several spoke of the dangers of the 'anai-anai' - the group of people who are in PAS, but do not subscribe to the fikrah of PAS, and are unwittingly weakening PAS from inside.

The main contention against these so-called 'anai-anai' is that they do not subscribe to the real fikrah of PAS - that PAS is an Islamic movement and doing anything that weakens PAS, from the point of religion, is wrong.

Despite concerns about the 'polluted fikrah' contaminating PAS, and despite calls for the fikrah to be united and purified once again, PAS still elects people from various backgrounds into its top echelon. Several figures now holding important posts in PAS did not come from PAS' own mould. Some even have a history of working for groups who do not subscribe to PAS' fikrah. Worse still, there is also one or two who in their student years have worked hard to weaken PAS' influence among students.

Bearing in mind that PAS do not have a set way of scrutinising candidates' fikrah, how is it at all possible for a proper Islamic movement to elect people who may not subscribe to the fikrah of PAS into position of significant influence?

Even if the top leaders do not have problems with these individuals, do they not see how confusing it is for us on the ground?

Surely a proper Islamic movement will see purity and unity of fikrah as more important than anything else. Surely the first step in strengthening any Islamic movement is to firstly be clear about its own fikrah. Yet, these figures are still given high positions in the belief that they can help PAS win elections.

Islamic movement or political party?

I will not discuss other examples as it will take too long to do so. Suffice to say that increasingly, PAS is becoming more focused on winning elections that it risks forgetting that there are those who still see PAS as an Islamic movement first and political party second.

Unfortunately, the last muktamar focused almost totally on how to win elections and not how to strengthen the other elements of work resting on the shoulders of an Islamic movement. All the talk about 're-packaging' the party was almost totally aimed at winning elections. Does that mean the delegates want PAS to change and become just another political party? Does that mean 'PAS the political party' is slowly engulfing 'PAS the harakah Islamiyah'?

As PAS strives to become a mainstream party accepted by the majority, are we going to see the Islamic movement elements become more and more subservient to politics? If PAS continues to push forward its agenda for change without conducting a full internal debate and without encouraging true (and free) intellectual discourse on its future, I fear that the answer is yes.

And if PAS decreases itself to being merely another political party, and loses its Islamic movement credentials, it should be forewarned that those of us who has committed our lives to the struggle of an Islamic movement will have no qualms to look for alternatives.

Yesterday: PAS and the public perception

WAN SAIFUL WAN JAN is currently conducting research in business ethics, with a particular focus on corporate social responsibility, at Middlesex University Business School, London. He was educated at Sekolah Alam Shah in Cheras and Tonbridge School in England before moving on to the University of Liverpool and Northumbria University. He can be reached at wansaiful@gmail.com .