Role of Leadership to Control and Mould Electables
Dear Brother Zubair,

Please read a column of Oriya Maqbool Jan, as circulated by brother Khizir Farooqi and as copied below:

ORIA MAQBOOL JAN                                  GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT

ARIF NIZAMI                                                 JAMHURIAT KE NAM PAR HI, JAMHURIAT KAMZOR

I do not agree with the criticism of both writers against Imran Khan giving tickets to 'Electables'. I will write about it later. Here I  am referring OMJ column to draw your attention to a fact he has mentioned in detail. He has mentioned names of a long list of our early Politicians, during the first 40 years of Pakistan, who were honest and men of integrity. No scandal of corruption was ever raised against them even by their political opponents. It was because that our Leadership during the first 40 years was different from what we find during the last 30 years.

Dr. Ishrat Hussain, Governor, State Bank of Pakistan has written a book on this subject, separating these 2 eras of first 40 years and last 30 years. He has compared Economic Development of these 2 eras. It shows how our country's Economic Development deteriorated fast during the last 30 years compared to our achievements during the first 40 years. Therefore blaming the Muslim world for generating thrillers of corruption is not correct. All our early politicians starting from Quaid-e-Azam do not qualify to your generalization of the entire 'Muslim World'.

It is not a feature of the 'Muslim World'. Rather it is a feature of most of the underdeveloped countries in the world. Muslim World is also a part of it. Such thrillers should not be surprising, but it is not always a regular feature. The root cause that generates such thrillers is the problem of LEADERSHIP. Maulana Maududi has called it 'Saleh Leadership'. Despite opposition of the late respected Dr. Israr Ahmad, he threw Jamaat-e-Islami into politics after the establishment of Pakistan, a big Policy-Change compared to previous JI role of Dawah in pre-Partition India. He was sure that 'Islami Nizam' cannot be established simply by enlarging Dawah activities as Dr. Israr tried to do. JI was required to bring 'Saleh' or clean Leadership into power for this purpose.

He wanted JI to strive for bringing Saleh Leadership to govern Pakistan. Unfortunately, my brother Sirajul Haq is betraying Maududi dream and my colleague, ex-Amir, Munawwar Hasan policy of remaining far away from the so-called Maulana, a shame to the respected word, Maulana. Sirajul Haq policy of joining hands with that corrupt Maulana Fazlur Rahman and abandoning PTI coalition is a big step forward to loose a lot it had achieved in the past, in my humble opinion. I once tried to call him in Mansurah, Lahore from Japan to advise against any coalition with a renowned corrupt Maulana.

There is one more aspect in which brother Sirajul Haq has faulted and betrayed Maulana Maududi policy, in my humble personal opinion.  Maulana Maududi has several times emphasized that we are not hungry to grab Power for ourselves at any cost. If someone else brings about a government to follow on the pattern of Medina government as established by our Prophet (PBUH), we will follow and support him. IK has several times declared the same aim and ideal of his government. JI should have supported him to realize this dream, as it was doing earlier in a coalition with him in KPK. But alas! brother Sirajul Haq forgot it. While there was a flood of new voters and politicians from ML (N), Peoples Party and other political and religious Parties joining PTI attracted by his ideals of No-Corruption and to follow Medina State pattern, unfortunately my brother Sirajul Haq chose this timing to separate his ways from PTI. Is it the height of JI political wisdom and strategy?

However, this is how Imran Khan also defends his selection of Electables. He is confident, as he had emphasized in a TV interview with Zohra Naseem that under his Leadership, Electables cannot dare to return to their corrupt practices of the past. The Leadership of both Sharifs and Zardaris during the last 30 years was itself at the zenith of corruption. It facilitated the Electables to move on a similar path in which their Leaders were proceeding. But they will not get such an opportunity under the Leadership of Imran Khan.

As written in my article circulated earlier, such critics are simply trying to raise a storm in a tea cup. These Columnists and Anchors are unable to foresee that if these corrupt Electables are elected under the Leadership of IK, they will have to change themselves to the requirements of PTI ideology of No-Corruption. Let us see after elections how many of these Electables are found involved in corrupt practices under the Leadership of Imran Khan?

My other arguments on this issue can be seen on the following link on my website.

Hussain Khan, M. A. (Tokyo)
Skype ID: hkhanjp
Mobile: 81-(0)8088366905
Business & Dawah Websites:
http://www.dawahislamia.com/my-asia-times-articles.php (About Japanese and American Economy)
http://www.dawahislamia.com/my-recent-videos-on-darwin-id-and-other-topics.php (Videos of my speech on Darwin theory and DNA etc. in an annual meeting of Islamic Circle of Japan)
(My Research Articles on Interestless Financing of Toyota in 9 Installments published in Urdu)
... Severally (English Edition) [Kindle edition] by Hussain Khan M. A. Tokyo. ... This article was also well-discussed in 2003 in DAWN, the Asia Times and other Net ........

On 6/27/2018 1:24 PM, Zubair bin Umar Siddiqui wrote:

Quite interesting and enlightening . I some time wonder why such stories of mega corruption scandals  are related and originate from the Muslim world .Why  we dont see such   'thrillers'  coming out of Britain, Germany ,US and Canada   whereas  democracies and autocratic regimes both  are frequently and normally   corrupt in Muslim countries only?


SAuthoritarianism and Autocracy
By:James M. Dorsey, USA
Date: Sunday, 24 June 2018, 3:24 pm

By James M. Dorsey

Embattled former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak was the main loser in last month’s election upset that returned Mahathir Mohamad to power as his country’s anti-corruption crusader. Yet, Mr. Razak is not the only one who may be paying the price for allegedly non-transparent and unaccountable governance.

So is Saudi Arabia with a Saudi company having played a key role in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal in which Mr. Razak is suspected to have overseen the siphoning off of at least US$4.5 billion and the Saudi government seemingly having gone out of its way to provide him political cover.

While attention has focussed largely on the re-opening of the investigation of Mr. Razak and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, both of whom have been banned from travel abroad and have seen their homes raided by law enforcement, Saudi Arabia has not escaped policymakers’ consideration. Mr. Razak has denied all allegations of wrongdoing.

The geopolitical fallout of the scandal is becoming increasingly evident. Defence Minister Mohamad Sabu suggested this week that Malaysia was re-evaluating the presence of Malaysian troops in Saudi Arabia, dispatched to the kingdom as part of the 41-nation, Saudi-sponsored Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC).

“The ATM (Malaysian Armed Forces) presence in Saudi Arabia has indirectly mired Malaysia in the Middle East conflict… The government will make a decision on the matter in the near future after a re-evaluation has been completed,” said Mr. Sabu, who is known for his critical view of Saudi Arabia.

In a commentary published late last year that suggests a potential Malaysian re-alignment of its Middle Eastern relationships, Mr. Sabu noted that Saudi wrath has been directed “oddly, (at) Turkey, Qatar, and Iran…three countries that have undertaken some modicum of political and economic reforms. Instead of encouraging all sides to work together, Saudi Arabia has gone on an offensive in Yemen, too. Therein the danger posed to Malaysia: if Malaysia is too close to Saudi Arabia, Putrajaya would be asked to choose a side.”

Putrajaya, a city south of Kuala Lumpur, is home to the prime minister’s residence.

Mr. Sabu went on to say that “Malaysia should not be too close to a country whose internal politics are getting toxic… For the lack of a better word, Saudi Arabia is a cesspool of constant rivalry among the princes. By this token, it is also a vortex that could suck any country into its black hole if one is not careful. Indeed, Saudi Arabia is governed by hyper-orthodox Salafi or Wahhabi ideology, where Islam is taken in a literal form. Yet true Islam requires understanding Islam, not merely in its Quranic form, but Quranic spirit.”

Since coming to office, Mr. Sabu has said that he was also reviewing plans for a Saudi-funded anti-terrorism centre, the King Salman Centre for International Peace (KSCIP), which was allocated 16 hectares of land in Putrajaya by the Razak government. Mr. Sabu was echoing statements by Mr. Mahathir before the election.

Compounding potential strains in relations with Saudi Arabia, Seri Mohd Shukri Abdull, Mr. Mahathir’s newly appointed anti-corruption czar, who resigned from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in 2016 as a result of pressure to drop plans to indict Mr. Razak, noted that “we have had difficulties dealing with Arab countries (such as)…Saudi Arabia…”

The investigation is likely to revisit 1MDB relationship’s with Saudi energy company PetroSaudi International Ltd, owned by Saudi businessman Tarek Essam Ahmad Obaid as well as prominent members of the kingdom’s ruling family who allegedly funded Mr. Razak.

It will not have been lost on Saudi Arabia that Mr. Mahathir met with former PetroSaudi executive and whistle blower Xavier Andre Justo less than two weeks after his election victory.

A three-part BBC documentary, The House of Saud: A Family at War, suggested that Mr. Razak had worked with Prince Turki bin Abdullah, the son of former Saudi King Abdullah, to syphon off funds from 1MDB.

Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir came to Mr. Razak’s rescue in 2016 by declaring that US$681 million transferred into the prime minister’s personal bank account was a “genuine donation with nothing expected in return.”

The Malaysian election as well as seeming Saudi complicity in the corruption scandal that toppled Mr. Razak has global implications, particularly for the United States and China, global powers who see support of autocratic and/or corrupt regimes as the best guarantee to maintain stability.

It is a lesson that initially was apparent in the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

The rollback of the achievements of most of those revolts backed by autocratic leaders in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates bent on reshaping the Middle East and North Africa in their mould has contributed to the mayhem, violence and brutal repression engulfing the region.

In addition, autocratic rule has failed to squash widespread economic and social discontent. Middle Eastern states, including Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon Iran, and most recently Jordan have witnessed protests against rising prices, cuts in public spending and corruption.

“The public dissatisfaction, bubbling up in several countries, is a reminder that even more urgent action is needed,” warned Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Elections, if held at all, more often than not fail to serve as a corrective in the Middle East and North Africa because they are engineered rather than a free and fair reflection of popular will. Elections in countries like Iraq and Lebanon serve as exceptions that confirm the rule while Iran represents a hybrid.

As a result, street protests, militancy and violence are often the only options available to those seeking change.

Against that backdrop, Malaysia stands out as an example of change that does not jeopardize stability. It is but the latest example of Southeast Asian nations having led the way in producing relatively peaceful political transitions starting with the 1986 popular revolt in the Philippines, the 1998 toppling of Suharto in Indonesia, and Myanmar’s 2010 transition away from military dictatorship.

This is true even if Southeast Asia also demonstrates that political transition is a decades-long process that marches to the tune of Vladimir Lenin’s principle of two steps forward, one step backwards as it witnesses a backslide with the rise in the Philippines of President Rodrigo Duterte’s authoritarianism, stepped up jihadist activity, the 2014 military coup in Thailand, increasingly autocratic rule in Cambodia, the rise of conservatism and intolerance in Indonesia, and the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar.

If anything, Malaysia constitutes an anti-dote.

“Malaysia’s institutions proved more resilient…and descent into authoritarianism has been averted – offering a lesson not only to aspiring dictators, but to those in the United States who argue that propping up corrupt leaders is in U.S. interests,” said Alex Helan, a security and anti-corruption consultant.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title as well as Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario, Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa, and the forthcoming China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom