By midnight of the 25th of May 2011 (the deadline for filing the Certificates of Candidacy for the August 8th, 2011 ARMM Elections), there are 14 people who filed their COCs for ARMM Governor and 16 for the position of Vice Governor. The prominent personalities competing for the Governorship and Vice Governorship are the PDP-Laban Tandem composed of Pax Mangudadatu and Tingting Cojuangco. The other equally prominent tandem is the still shaping LP-AKBAYAN and AMIN Tandem of Mujib Hataman and Hookie Adiong.

Sunday, the 22nd of May, the original deadline for filing the COCs saw Pax Mangudadatu’s long and festive motorcade from Isulan to Cotabato City passing through important Maguindanao towns along the way. In the afternoon of the said date, the PDP-Laban team – Pax and Tingting – with all their ‘Technicolor and amazing’ followers and admirers trooped to the ARMM COMELEC Office creating a festive event that was tantamount to a public declaration that the ARMM Elections will take place as scheduled on August 8th, 2011.

COMELEC responded favorably to the request of extending the filing of COCs to midnight of the 25th of May. By then other contenders came to the scene though subdued, because there seems to be NO official party endorsement. The PNoy Administration, though preparing for an election mode, is still hoping for a postponement of the said elections to May 13th, 2013.

The names in the rosters of candidates by midnight of the 24th reveal, though no official endorsement, that Mujib Hataman and Hookie Adiong would be the LP-AKBAYAN-AMIN Tandem. This is also the buzz in the grapevine as the temperature of the ARMM election fever continues to rise.

Many are beginning to surmise if the ARMM August 2011 Election will be a reprise of the May 2010 electoral battle between Jojo Binay of the PDP-Laban and Mar Roxas of LP-AKBAYAN. In the May 2010 Elections, the winning team in the ARMM was NoyBi or Noynoy and Binay.

The whole PDP-Laban with the Vice President Jojo Binay and former Senator Nene Pimentel are all out in their endorsement and support for the Pax and Tingting tandem.

There are few civil society organizations that question the candidacy of Tingting Cojuangco on the basis of her residency and her religion. Tingting directly responded to the objections. First, she said that she is a resident of Awang, Datu Odin Sinsuat Municipality and she has satisfied the residency requirement set by law. Moreover, her work, advocacy and passion for the ARMM since 1986 more than qualify her to speak and represent the ARMM in a Vice Governor capacity.

On the second objection that she is not a Muslim, the simple answer is the fact that the law does NOT make any religious or ethnic qualifications for the post of elective and appointive positions in the ARMM. Though the ARMM is Muslim dominated, there are Indigenous Peoples and Christians who reside in the five provinces and one city that constitute the ARMM. Though they are minority constituents of the ARMM, they have all the rights and privileges to contest any position in any election in a democratic society.

The ARMM as a region is governed by clan and family politics. Rightly or wrongly, the clans and families are linked to their specific ancestral domain in a sort of ‘fiefdom’. With the imminent ARMM elections, the whole region has become a formidable beehive as families and clans have begun to meet and decide on the formation of alliances.

In the ARMM, it is neither the civil society nor the liberation fronts that decide the outcome of elections. Prominent families and clans hold sway over the people and elections in their respective domains. These are the leaders both by blood (the ruling houses) and elections (the LGUs).

By tradition, the administration candidates win in the ARMM Elections. The simple logic is the fact that all resources of the national government, including the security sectors and COMELEC itself, are placed into the hands of the anointed candidates by the President of the Republic.

The only exception is the May 2010 elections when, for the first time, the opposition won the elections. This is explained by the simple fact that there was then a power vacuum in the ARMM. The second explanation was the clear indicator then that it would be Noynoy victory so the clans and families would NOT displease the would be paramount Lord along the Pasig River.

It is interesting to observe that the Senate deliberation on the postponement of the ARMM elections has been ‘mooted’ by the election fever. Though the Senate still has power to comply with the House to postpone the said elections, the whole issue is now seen as water under the bridge. All sundry within the ARMM with few exceptions are already in the elections mode. Why should the national government think otherwise…? The Senate might as well ‘archive’ the Drilon Bill and move on to more pressing legislative agenda.

The debate is heating up on the issue of postponement of the ARMM Elections due on the 8th of August 2011. The ball is now in the Senate and the people from both sides of the debate eagerly await the Senate verdict.

People who oppose postponement hope that the Senate would exercise more independence and wisdom in deciding on the issue that involves not only ARMM elections but also the very heart of autonomy and self-rule which in local parlance means ‘Malacañang, keep off’. The position lies on the principle of democracy and self-rule. The RA 9054 or the Organic Act or the Basic Law of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao guarantees self-rule including the manner of choosing their leaders so long that it would not affect national elections.

The Organic Act is not a simple piece of legislation. It was ratified by the people that now constitute the ARMM. Any amendment of the Organic Act has to be enacted by Congress with a 2/3 majority with both houses voting separately and the final arbiter for the said amendment being the ARMM voters who would ratify/reject the proposed amendments in a plebiscite called for the purpose.

On the other hand, the national government believes that there is an urgent need for reforms in the ARMM. To effect the said reforms, the government is proposing a cancellation of the August 8th, 2011 ARMM Elections and the president to appoint OICs who would initiate the ‘desired’ reforms in the ARMM.

There are actually barely 22 months between 30th September 2011 and May 13th, 2013 for the appointed OICs to set in the much needed reforms in the ARMM.

The debates between the two camps have been going on peacefully albeit some arm twisting of the LGUs. But on the main, I thought it is a real exercise of democracy as people express their views and takes on the holding of the August 8th ARMM Elections or postponing the same to May 13th, 2013.

I have learned to respect the pro postponement position and the reason for such advocacy notwithstanding my personal opposition to said idea.

I believe that the ARMM is in need of reforms. But I believe in a long and sustainable reform and NOT on an instant reforms to be accomplished in 22 months. To begin with, the reforms that the proponents of postponement speak of are rather ambiguous and generic. Coupled by a lack of concrete people that they can identify to effect such reforms, I thought the whole project amounts to romanticism, to say the least.

I thought that the democratic debates on the issue will provide the Senators for a conscience vote on the following issues:

First is the rule of law involving the treatment of RA 9054;

Second is the wisdom of the senators in dealing with self-rule or self-determination as guaranteed by RA 9054; and

Third is the very issue of doing away with elections – its morality in a democratic process albeit flawed.

Then comes the speculation on possible lawlessness in the ARMM that would warrant the postponement of ARMM Elections as scheduled.

I believe that the pro postponement people including government have the moral stature not to use instances of kidnapping like what occurred recently in North Upi to justify postponement. The prospect of widespread lawlessness in the ARMM is highly speculative and it has NO basis in fact. Kidnapping and terrorism form a separate and parallel tract. The Security Sector, LGUs and CSO should address the said issues apart from the issue of ARMM Elections.

I believe that government will abide by the Senate votes. And I am sure that government would defend the legality of any such law if it is questioned in the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the government would go by the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue.

This week, the Senate would debate the merit of the issue. Our senators, hopefully, would NOT give in to pressures but they should weigh the following:

1. What the Organic Law (RA 9054) says about elections and whether the said law gives continuous discretion to Congress to hold, cancel or postpone the ARMM Elections by simply passing an ordinary legislation; and

2. Congress cancel/ postpone elections and authorize the president to appoint OICs for 22 months in the name of reforms.

Let us keep the debates alive as we move towards the Senate votes on the issue. But above all, in the spirit of autonomy already granted to the ARMM, let the people of the ARMM in a referendum called for purpose decide on the issue. I believe and hold that the people of the ARMM should be the final arbiter on the cancellation of the scheduled elections on the 8th of August 2011.

This blog entry is meant to begin the discussion on issues of Islamic State, Islamic rule and the status of non-Muslims. Understanding of the concepts is important as we locate the discourse on governance applicable to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. To begin with, Islamic rule is understood as the complete implementation of the Shari’a on both individuals and society as well. An Islamic State is the one whose affairs are regulated by the Qur’an, Traditions and the Shari’a or Islamic Law.

The articulated position of the many and varied Islamist movements, including al-Qaeda and Jemah Islamiyyah, is the fact that they aim to establish an Islamic government. To them the Islamic rule will ensure that the citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, enjoy freedom, justice, equality and democracy and their human rights as articulated in the Qur’an, the Traditions and the Shari’a.

In a very specific sense, the non-Muslims who are recognized as ‘people of the book’ (Jews, Christians and Sabaeans) will be treated as “protected people” (ahl-dhimma). But a simple reference to the historical concept of dhimma does not capture the essence of the concept and the praxis of the dhimma through the centuries.

This short brief attempts to open a discourse on the concept of dhimma as understood and practised through the centuries and codified in variety of caliphal decrees and legal texts that contribute to the present corpus on the concept and praxis of dhimma.

The concept of Dhimma evoked the idea of protection/covenant during the time of the prophet. The prophet took upon himself and the Islamic government the “protection” of the people of the book beginning with the Christians of Najran.

The people of the book (ahl - ad - kitab) are the Christians, Jews and Sabaeans. They are guaranteed life, liberty and, in a modified sense, property rights. They are called dhimmi (ahl - dhimma) or protected/covenant people.

In return for the “protection” accorded the people of the book, they have to accomplish the following:

1. Each adult sane male must pay a poll tax (djizya) or ‘head tax’.
2. Non-Muslims must distinguish themselves from believers by dress, not riding on horseback or carrying weapons.
3. Non-Muslims are not allowed to join the Islamic armies but they pay for the maintenance of Islamic armies.
4. They must always have a respectful attitude towards Muslims.
5. They are also under certain legal disabilities with regards to testimony in courts.

On the praxis of Dhimma, one can only go study the praxis during the times of the Caliphs and Sultans from the 7th century to the time of the Ottamans.

The 1st example of Dhimma praxis is handed over by “Umar ibn Khattab, the 2nd Caliph and companion of the prophet after Abu Bakr. The 7th Century Pact of Umar is still extant.

The 7th Century Pact of Umar outlined the following salient provisions:

• They must not build new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks’ cells. No repairs in the existing ones if they fall in ruins.
• There shall be no public manifestation of religion nor convert anyone to it.
• They must have always respect towards the Muslims and seats must be given to the Muslims.
• They shall not mount on horseback, nor they shall gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on their persons.
• There shall be no selling of fermented drinks or forbidden food.
• There shall be no public display of crosses.

This pact was further refined in the 8th and 9th centuries as written in al-Shafi ‘ i ’s Kitab al Umm. Briefly the refinements are summarized in the following principles:

1. The non-Muslims shall be subject to the authority of Islam and to no contrary authority.
2. They shall not refuse to carry out any obligation that the Islamic State sees fit to impose upon them by virtue of this authority.
3. If anyone of them speaks improperly of Muhammad. My God bless and save him, the Book of God or of his religion, he forfeits the dhimma (note: This is the basis of the Blasphemy Law of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan during the time of the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Iran).

The status of Dhimma for the people of the book in Islamic State had remained the same until the coming of Modern Islamic political thought during the 18th and 19th centuries reform by the so-called “Young Turks” Revolution of 1908. The idea of freedom came into the scene in the 18th and early 19th century Ottoman Empire patently due to European influence.

In the expansion of the French Empire, General Napoleon Bonaparte upon his arrival in Egypt introduced the French understanding of freedom on the basis of French revolution’s slogan “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”.

All these movements led to the reform edict of 1839, the 1st Ottoman Constitution in 1878 and the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. Freedom took roots during that period. This referred to individual as well as societal political, social, economic and religious freedom.

In the post World War II movements of decolonization, the people of the land, Muslims and non-Muslims, became co-citizens enjoying the same rights and privileges. Nationality became the basis of unity and nationhood. Practically the entire Muslim world adopted this model with few exceptions (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and later the Islamic Republic of Iran post Khomeini Islamic Revolution).

The dhimma was totally rejected since its concept and praxis put the non-Muslims in inferior positions. As a matter of fact, the Dhimmis were never considered citizens.

The reform and the subsequent struggles for national freedom participated by all citizens (Muslims and non-Muslim alike) gave birth to new and independent nations of citizens on the basis constitution or charter. The Nasser’s experiment on Islamic Socialism, the Ba’ath Movement and the Green Book of Qaddafi in the Middle East and North Africa have been the prominent champions of equality of all citizens regardless of faith, ideology, culture and color.