opinion

The present on-going debate between PAS and DAP over the issue of an Islamic state seems to offer little or no insight into the material options that both sides would like to offer.

But then a closer examination would indicate that both, despite their ideological/political differences, have nothing to say on the larger problem that is rooted in the economic system that both unwittingly endorse.

In fact, it could be argued that the DAP is more responsive to this system whereas PAS' ideology of an Islamic state is a reactive one, without the material option. But certainly the realm of ideas provides maximum opportunities for groups and parties to debate and come out with the best governing political principle.

From the manner and nature of the debate and media statements issued by the respective political parties, DAP's best governing principle for Malaysian politics is a secular one based on the concept of a 'Malaysian Malaysia'.

PAS' manifesto is the notion of Islamic state, in other words, religion as the governing principle of Malaysian politics. Despite the incongruity of both the versions, structurally they are related.

In fact, I would argue that the notion of a secular state as the most appropriate system abstracted from the Western experience is the main factor in the rise of non-secular forms of political governance with religion as one particular manifestation.

Imperialism phenomenon

From this perspective, one has to go beyond the realm of superstructure. It was capitalist development in the West that provided the impetus for the organisation of politics on secular lines.

In fact, it was the secular state that became the best agent for the reproduction of the system over a period of time. Secular ideology became popular in the non-Western world as result of various factors having their roots in colonialism, imperialism, westernisation and, more important, the need to promote capitalist development.

However, the problem with secularisation as a governing ideology is basically related not so much to the superstructural realm, but rather to the uneven developmental process.

It can even be argued that the secular ideology as the best governing principle has been questioned from the failure of the developmental process.

Uneven development, the growing gap between the rich and poor, the gap between developed and underdeveloped countries, the phenomenon of imperialism in its many facets and others have contributed in some measure to the unpopularity of the secular ideology.

For instance, the rise of religious politics and other forms of non-secular manifestations in the world today is in a large measure a reflection of the secular forms of government to resolve things such as rampant corruption, particular kinds of lifestyles of the rich, the meaning of development, the growing immesrization of the poor and others.

Definite limits

Thus, in this context, the rise of Islam as a way of life must not be understood in the simple Umno versus PAS debate and why Muslims in general are moving in the direction of accepting the line of argument pursued by PAS.

Furthermore, the concept of an Islamic state, whatever the definition provided by PAS, is not so much that PAS has the answers to larger questions, but rather the desire on the part of sections of the Malay/Muslin community in Malaysia to seek answers to the questions on the meaning of life, existence, what should be the future and others.

Thus, from these perspectives, the version of Islam articulated by PAS in opposition to the version of Umno's, seems to offer some guidance to Muslims in Malaysia.

Like the secular state, the religious state does not have all the answers. The experience of earlier religious states in Europe and the experience of certain Muslim countries like Iran seem to indicate that there are definite limits in using religion as the organising principle of politics.

The imposition of a religious state would be tantamount to imposing a religious hegemony on communities that profess different religious beliefs.

In other words, while it is understandable why there spiritual manifestations in form of religious solution to developmental problems, organising governance on the basis one religion is basically a non-starter.

The are grounds to believe that a religious state would not be democratic in that major interpretations and decision-making would be in the hands of those profess knowledge in religious matters. Beyond this, any form of a religious state would be totally incongruent with the present-day demand for democracy, human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples and others.

Of course, they may be attempts to popularise the religious option by adopting certain universalistic features but beyond immediate propaganda, these features do not have any value in the larger sense of the word.

Ideal types

The debate for either a secular or religious state cannot be just confined to the realm of ideas or superstructure. Presently, the debate is just doing that. What has to be done is to relate the present debate to the material side.

Viewed from this perspective, the two political options have one thing in common - they, at least for the time being, do not question the present development paradigm rooted in the predatory nature of the capitalist system.

While the secular option is more responsive to the demands of the system, the religious one is reacting to the system without offering any alternative. The religious alternative is a poor one indeed, because the so-called religious state alternative seeks to change governance at the level of the superstructure without offering a material option.

So unless these two options can articulate their concerns more broadly by taking into account the larger theoretical and empirical issues, these concerns will be replete with problems.

It is not that the articulation of political alternatives must always come with a rigorous economic analysis to establish the congruence between the superstructural and material realms.

For the time being, we can pursue the option of a political alternative by recognising that secularism and the religious version are ideal types. More than this, past and present empirical realities provide insights as to the problematic nature of both models of political governance.

In this respect, there is necessity to see how we can combine secularism and the spiritualism contained in all the country's religions in the best possible manner.

P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.