 |
|
 |
Tashpulat Yuldashev vs Muhammad Salih |
By political analyst Tashpulat Yuldashev
In an article “Plays on faith”, published on the Yangi Dunyo (New World) website in August 2010, I tried to discuss issues related to public development with Salih but in vain.
Obviously, he did not think I matched him. By the way, I do not remember a single case when Salih has entered a debate with anyone in the past 20 years.
A question arises: why should Muhammad Salih hold discussion with me or any other opponent?
I have personally repeatedly stressed my critical attitude to the political stance and activities of Muhammad Salih. Below are my reasons.
The qualities of a politician who lays claims to the highest post in a country acquire public significance.
In case of a deeply religious person’s arrival in power, religion, like the government system, may become politicised and conservative Islamic traditions and norms may be revived.
Examples are Iran, Afghanistan, Somali, Tunisia and Egypt.
Not only does the government define the country’s political course and nature of public relations but also influences the behaviour of officials and public figures.
What is Salih’s position?
The People’s Movement of Uzbekistan and its members do not conceal their aim to bring the country in line with the norms and principles of the Koran, while socioeconomic issues of people will be solved based on the Shariah, which does not exist as a code of laws.
The Erk party’s short platform alone contains six quotations from the Koran, whereas most books and articles written by Salih discuss religion.
Here are some quotations from them: “Schools will teach the history of religion”; “I am happy that I have changed my world outlook. Thank Allah, He has showed me his world from different facets in each of which I have found a necessary lesson for myself.”
“States that are formally called Muslim states have been run by people who had nothing to do with Islam either spiritually or ideologically.”
Salih considers social processes and political issues through the prism of religious concepts, focuses on raising people’s religiosity further to use the religious factor and protest mood to achieve his political goals.
This position concerns me and the intellectual elite, and provokes questions concerning his political platform.
Usually, critics comment on the position and activities of famous people and politicians who cause public outcry.
Views on Muhammad Salih
My followers and I believe that the status of the leader of the Erk party and the People’s Movement of Uzbekistan requires him answer elementary questions helping people determine their own political priorities, likes and dislikes.
– What is constructive about the movement? What kind of domestic policy is Mr Salih going to conduct if he comes to power?
– How does he envisage Uzbekistan’ political and ideological course, its development policy: on the path of Islam or European civilisation?
– What place will Islam occupy in the government system and social life?
– What comes first: religious education of the masses or the solution of current social and economic problems in order to ensure the welfare of people in real life?
– What are the mechanisms and tools for the implementation of a new statehood project declared by Erk and the movement?
Unfortunately, neither supporters nor opponents of Mr Salih have received clear answers to these questions in the past 20 years and will hardly receive.
We aim to enter discussion with Mr Salih in order to demonstrate to the public his real value as a politician, so that unsuspecting people around are not deceived by empty promises and to save them from gross mistakes in their choice.
Cultural level
We oppose the politicisation of Islam, Islamisation of social processes in Uzbekistan and are prepared to enter a public debate with its supporters on topical issues related to social development. It is our civic duty.
Unfortunately, the level of culture and political discussions in the opposition circles remains extremely low due to the lack of mature national politicians and observers.
Some politicians who received recognition by fate are avoiding debates and clashes of positions because of their weak political literacy. Political struggle as the driving force of society is not developing in our country.
Sometimes you catch yourself thinking that a long life in the West and other countries has not affected the views, vocabulary and behaviour of our citizens.
They have not learnt to hold a correct discussion as experts in the media and the Internet on public policy.
Instead of a civilised debate, supported by arguments and facts, discussion is turned into a farce or an outbreak of dispute between people who are not hearing each other but rushing to give an irritating and emotional rebuttal to any mild criticism.
Even a fundamental disagreement on key issues does not undermine the importance of respect for the opinions of others. Respect for other viewpoints does not mean sharing it.
Discussion is important
Difference in opinion should not be an obstacle to common fight against dictatorship and for democratic reforms in the country.
Truth emerges from the clash of contrary opinions and their comparison. Businesslike discussions are capable of stirring public thought and generating new ideas and approaches.
They influence ideas, expanding the parameters of thought and involving more people in political and public processes, mastering new knowledge.
Disputes are necessary for enlightenment of the potential electorate and for understanding ourselves, analysing and evaluating errors and miscalculations, adjusting tactics and strategies, determining the political prospects in comparison.
But openness to constructive dialogue and ability to argue in a civilised manner, withstanding a blow, are the qualities of confident politicians and thinking people.
Calmly listening and understanding one’s opponent are the qualities of those who are confident in their correctness and validity of their arguments. Leaders who lay claims to power and who assumed the responsibility to speak on behalf of parts of society should be open to discussing their positions and activities.
An aggressive emotional tone, attempts to lie and turn everything upside down, crude attacks on the other side in order to exert pressure on the website editor and censoring other people’s articles, statements and comments are a sign of totalitarian thinking.
The rejection of pluralism of opinion and silencing those who express criticism do not speak in favour of an opponent, but rather shows his lack of culture and inability to engage in polemics.
Only leaders like Islam Karimov try their best to stay out of criticism, and surround themselves with secrecy that instils fear and obedience in people.
Salih, we believe, knows what other questions I and my associates can ask him during debate, and how we will back our arguments.
In order not to show his weakness and not fail publicly, he cowardly avoids debating with us.
What can be done?
Everybody wants to live in the most just and prosperous state.
Nations who solve pragmatic problems and bet on sciences, high technology and innovative development have made a breakthrough, leaving us far behind.
We need to improve too. It is no wonder they say: keep learning as long as you live. Encouraging diversity of opinion and showering different information on people, we can and must revive the intellectual life and develop skills of analytical thinking in society that are extremely needed for improvement.
Putting spiritual education in the corner of an economically backward and demoralised country with a poor population is not rational.
Activating internal behavioural control of a human being who is concerned about basic survival is extremely difficult.
No-one has so far managed to improve people’s living conditions by increasing people’s religiosity and lifting the country by prayers.
Salih and his allies sometimes write and speak about the importance of science and secular education for social development and about democratic reforms that does not fit into their general political line.
In reality, they push back the solution of economic and social problems of the country.
They do not pay proper attention to people’s acquisition of secular knowledge, almost never commenting on the achievements of science, engineering and high technology in Western countries.
Democratic circles will seek to achieve the modernisation of a country, raising civic consciousness and building a modern society to help solve topical problems in this life, not in the afterlife.
I believe that the Uznews.net website objectively reflects the state of public opinion and dominant trends in the region’s media field.
I invite its readers to a discussion platform to take part in an exchange of views and turn debates into a common form of communication in society, despite opposition from some selfish people.
Uznews.net
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.