The 'Islamist Threat' as a Convenient Distraction
The story beneath the story: CASE A: Bangladesh's 'Islamist resurgence.' The DW article paints a picture of growing concern, stating, 'an unprecedented Islamist alliance is reshaping the country's electoral landscape.' It suggests a looming threat to secularism, citing the ‘Islamists’ potential to exploit political instability and public discontent. The framing implies that any strengthening of
religiously-oriented parties is inherently destabilizing and anti-democratic. It mentions a 2013 ban on Jamaat-e-Islami, implicitly endorsing that measure as a bulwark against fundamentalism, while also highlighting their continued, albeit unofficial, influence. CASE B: The Consistent Silence on Western-Backed Theocracies. Curiously, this alarm bell for 'Islamists gaining ground' is absent when
discussing, say, Saudi Arabia, a nation founded on and governed by Wahhabism – a far more rigid and intolerant interpretation of Islam than most Bangladeshi parties. Riyadh, a key Western ally, faced no such hand-wringing from major news outlets about its foundational religious political system, which explicitly denies fundamental rights and outlaws dissent. In fact, Western powers actively arm
and support the Saudi regime, with the US alone selling over $100 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia since 2015 (SIPRI, 2023). Where is the DW's impassioned piece on the 'Islamist' grip on the Kingdom's governance? Apparently, some Islam is more problematic than others, depending entirely on which patrons they answer to, and whether they pose a 'threat' to preferred regional alignment. THE