ANOTHER VIEWPOINT (AVP_NS85, February 2003) THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION FOR A STATE OF PALESTINE* Elias H. Tuma A committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has just issued a draft for a constitution of the state of Palestine. The text deals with most issues that relate to the founding and nurturing of the new state. The articles of the proposed constitution tend to be general and consistent with public declarations of state officials around the world, such as guarantees of basic freedoms, protections of civil rights, the environment, and human rights. Two of articles, however, stand out as incongruent with constitutions of modern states or with the guarantee of basic freedoms and civil rights, or with declared Palestinian positions ever since 1937. These articles relate to religion. Article 32 relates to the refugees, though in an unrealistic and inoperative way, at least from the standpoint of achieving peace and allowing the creation of a state. I shall discuss articles 6 and 7 which relate to religion in this issue of AVP. In the next issue I shall deal with the refugee question. Article 6 states: Islam shall be the official religion of the state. The monotheistic religions shall be respected. Article 7 says: The principles of the Islamic Shari a are a primary source for legislation. The legislative branch shall determine personal status law under the authority of the monotheistic religions according to their denominations, in keeping with provisions of the constitution and the preservation of unity, stability, and advancement of the Palestinian people. These two articles represent a regressive, divisive, and harmful position toward the future of Palestine and its people. As far back as 1937 the Palestinian leaders have 1
called for a unified, democratic, secular state in Palestine, for Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and any others living residing in the state. The term secular has come up again and again since then in declarations by Palestinian leaders for the promised state-to-be independent democratic Palestine. The turn around in the proposed draft constitution and the declaration of Islam as the official religion of the state is a retreat from secularism, from modernity, and from rational decision making. For one thing, as an institution the state cannot have a religion. The state does not go the mosque or the church, it does not pray, seek forgiveness, or hope for an abode in heaven after it dies if it does die. These behaviors and desires are those of individual believers, since religion is a relationship between the individual and the deity. By declaring Islam as the religion of the state, the Palestinian leaders would be co-opting and usurping religion to use it in making policy and controlling the behavior of the citizens. The proposed model is well illustrated in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Articles 6 and 7 of the draft constitution are divisive. They elevate one religion over another and thus give preference to certain citizens over others just because of their different religions. To respect the monotheistic religions is not a sufficient guarantee of unity, stability, or harmony within the society. Egypt also promises to respect all religions. Yet, Muslim Egyptians tend to periodically set Christian churches on fire and cause harm to their fellow (Christian) citizens. Sudan promises to respect the different religions in that country. Yet, it tries to impose Muslim law, the Shari a, on all, including the Christians in the South, thus causing the on-going civil war for the last two decades. Violent religious conflicts in Indonesia and Nigeria have been equally destructive and divisive, in spite of the official declarations to respect and protect other religions. The inherent divisiveness of Article 7 is almost guaranteed to undermine the unity and stability of prospective state of Palestine by making the Islamic law, Shari a, as a primary source of legislation. For example, Christians in Saudi Arabia cannot hold a 2
prayer meeting in public, let alone build churches. In fact, until about two decades ago, Christians and Jews could not officially set foot on Saudi Arabian soil. In Sudan, Nigeria, and Iran Shari a law has undermined the status of women, increased the number of lame people and amputees who had been physically punished instead of being helped to rehabilitate after crimes they had committed. Shari a law has also imposed the cruel punishment of stoning women for sex crimes in the name of religion. Articles 6 and 7 are harmful to the state and the people because they represent a surrender by the state to the demands of Muslim fundamentalists who try to impose their will and belief on others, by violence and terror if necessary. Yet, they bring no benefit to any one in return. The fundamentalists, by invoking Shari a law, cause harm and destruction, but they do not solve any problems, least of all the political and economic problems that plague their countries. Even a cursory look at the Muslim world and at the history of Arab-Israeli conflict will show the inability of the religious leaders to deal with affairs of the state efficiently and effectively, in contrast to secular governments in East and West. On the economic side, Turkey and Tunisia are the most economically advanced Muslim countries in the Middle East, and they happen to be the most secular among them. This is especially true of Turkey which is the most economically and technologically developed, and the least dependent on the developed countries. Islamic economies have achieved little success in Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia has the appearance of modernity but its economy is underdeveloped. If Palestine were to apply Islamic economic principles, there would be little hope that it will achieve better results in the economic and technological fields. If Palestine were to apply Islamic law there will be little hope that it will achieve better results in economic and technological development. 3
On the political side, the (religious) leadership of Palestine by Haj Amin el- Husayni brought only disaster. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has brought nothing but internal conflict and suffering. The Algerian fundamentalists have made a habit of torturing and massacring village families as a way of undermining government authority, with little to gain but bloodshed. The Palestinian leaders should reconsider their draft constitution carefully before submitting it for a referendum which simply asks voters to say Yes of No. They should remember that the West has been able to develop and prosper only after secularism and rationality replaced the power of the Church over the state. They should remember that the Muslim countries, other than Turkey, all of which have failed to secularize their economies and polities, have also failed to develop economically and technologically. At the same time they have failed to devise a model of development that is consistent with Shari a law as an alternative to the secular rational model of the West. They should observe the internal religious conflicts in Iran and Turkey, which cause wider dissent and instability, and obstruct economic and social development. Not only have the Muslim countries failed to develop and prosper, they also have hindered development by obstructing progressive analytical education in their schools and institutions of higher education. Conformity, obedience, submission to authority, and rote learning have become predominant features of education in these countries. As a result individual growth, rational decision making, and freedom of inquiry have been stunted, and that is why many of the bright and creative citizens emigrate, in search of greener and more open pastures in other countries. The cost of these departures has been high to the home countries. The Palestinian people should be able to enjoy the basic freedoms in the state they hope to establish. The freedoms of religion, expression, and communication should be guaranteed. The freedoms of thought, discovery, and innovation are basic to the creation 4
of a stable, progressive, and prosperous economy and society. By adopting Islam as the state religion and the Shari a as the primary source of legislation, as in the draft constitution, the Palestinian leaders will defeat all objectives of freedom, development, and progress. The Palestinian people have suffered enough because of the influence of religion. They do not need to suffer even more by making Islam the official religion of the state. Let us hope that wisdom will triumph, and freedom, democracy, and rationality will be the main features of the future state of Palestine. * Prepared by the Palestine Constitution Committee headed by Dr Nabeel Ali Shaath Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Completed on 14/2/2001http://www.mopic.gov.ps/key_decuments/constitution.asp[Official PA website] AVP is a non-profit, non-partisan monthly published by Elias H. Tuma, professor emeritus of economics, University of California, Davis, CA. The views expressed above are those of the author and do not implicate the university in any way. On internet: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/tuma/avpindex.html 5