Clause 20.1 of the WF Constitution which restricts the President’s term in office to a maximum of two consecutive terms was deleted by majority vote at the Extra-ordinary Meeting held at Stanmore, UK on 7 June, 1997.
After viewing a video tape of the proceedings various shortcomings were vivid and the objective of this write-up is first, to explain why the Africa Federation sought to preserve the Clause and secondly to candidly identify shortcomings of that meeting.
At the Meeting, the Chairman of the Africa Federation, Mohamed Dhirani explained the Africa stand in his address. To begin with he was disgruntled by the fact that a good part of the debate forwarded by the participants was unrelated to the discussion on Clause 20.1. He also decried the polarisation of this matter which, he said, created misunderstandings and catalysed lack of harmony in our community world-wide with possible negative repercussions in the long-term.
He emphasised that the Africa Federation had adopted a stand not out of personal confrontation but by exercising its democratic rights. He said the Africa delegation had not travelled to win a battle as there was no battle to be won and pointed out that the outcome, irrespective of what it would be, would be interpreted as being in the best interest of our community.
The Chairman said that Africa’s stance on the proposal was no different from what it had always been, that of supporting the limitation because it is a good safeguard to have within a constitution. He said that the Africa Federation stand was backed with 50 years of experience.
He described Clause 20.1 as being useful and said its preservation could be supported with logical reasoning. He said the proposal to delete this Clause is opposed on only its principle and merits with due regard to the present and future interest of the World Federation. Taking a retrospective view of Clause 20.1, he said that in October, 1990 the new Constitution was adopted and Clause 20.1 unanimously embodied. The restriction expressed in the Clause, he said, was not in the old Constitution and its addition was seen as a timely improvement. He pointed out that it was the Africa Federation who had, prior to 1990, proposed the restriction, having had the same restriction in its constitution to its advantage with a recurrent rise of new leaders with newer vision and enthusiasm. He said it is but only natural for enthusiasm and zeal to decline through monotony over a passage of time and that a period of six years would seem long enough for applying one's ideas.
Mohamedbhai said the World Federation, being the largest organisation with an electorate much larger than that of the Africa Federation, would stand to benefit even more, if a conducive atmosphere is created for the restriction to produce results as it has successfully done for the Africa Federation for decades. He reminded the gathering that an attempt made in 1994 to delete the restriction was abandoned when the consensus during the debate seemed against the proposed deletion.
He also questioned why the deletion was being sought when the restriction had not yet been tested or given a chance to show results. He termed the call for deletion as a non-issue and questioned whether it justified the convening of an Extra Ordinary Conference at short notice to discuss the proposal especially when the World Federation elections are only four months away and when the incumbent had not confirmed or declared his intention of offering himself as a candidate for re-election.
He said that if the proposal succeeds, the World Federation may be faced with a situation when the incumbent may still decide not to offer himself as a candidate, something which he declared in the Leeds Executive Council meeting in February, 1997. In wake of this, the Chairman pointed out that it is possible that there will be no other ready candidate at short notice and the post may then have to filled by one of the delegates present. He warned that then the criterion of suitability would then be sacrificed to succeed in finding one willing to fill the vacancy at short notice.
Mohamedbhai said no one can claim that any one person is an exception. He said that this provision in a constitution is common generally not only with organisations but also with States around the world and said it served as a constitutional rescue of a society from itself! He said the proposal to delete the Clause lacked foresight and made it appear that the present is more significant to us than the future.
The Chairman also mentioned that long serving leaders can unduly dominate decisions and even meetings could become procedural out of fear of offending an old-serving leader. There would also be no pressure for leaders to earn the score whilst on the other hand the restriction enables new leaders with different methodologies to take over.
He concluded that Allah (SWT) in His wisdom has made no person indispensable for the day to day affairs of the human race. He said the two significant words "AJALIN MUSAMMA" meaning "for an appointed term" or "for a period fixed" keep on appearing at about 19 different places in the Holy Qur’an to impress that it is HE, the Creator who decides the affairs of His creatures while the creatures themselves are transient or temporary in their appearance and agency in this world. He then cited an example of the death of the Prophet to which the people of the time had to get accustomed to despite desperately needing him.
Following the deletion of the Clause at the Extra-Ordinary meeting, sceptism prevails because the current President has at times publicly expressed his unwillingness for re-election. However from the circumstances by which the recent Extra-Ordinary Meeting was called, it is expected that the current President will seek re-election because the way things stand, it does not appear that anyone has been groomed to take over. If someone has been groomed to take over, the silence to this effect is inexplicable and again would raise the issue on why the Extra-Ordinary Meeting was called so urgently thereby costing the community over $ 100,000 by way of air-tickets and accomodation alone.
Another aspect considered by the Africa Federation is that it does not necessarily require a groomed leader to take over because we have many individuals in the community world-wide who possess inherent leadership qualities. What such potential leaders need is enough time to adjust their affairs before taking over and in the case of the forthcoming elections, they required to know the stance of the current President and the fate of Clause 20.1.
At Africa Federation level it was also felt that the subject of changing laws or for that matter a constitution to accommodate a personality creates a dangerous precedent which in the years to come could be a point of reference for others to make similar or unrelated changes to accomodate personal objectives.
Another point considered by the Africa Federation is that in the hurly burly of today’s life it is wrong for us to expect our leaders to unduly serve long terms because ultimately a time comes when the leaders themselves find it onerous to continue. Ironically the fear of having to serve a possible three terms would serve to deter many potential candidates who would consciously or subconsciously contemplate that traditionally our community is known to take its leaders for granted thereby compelling them to serve endlessly.
Again in many of our decisions we seek Islamic guidance. To this effect, one can find a true interpretation in the Iranian constitution which the late Ayatollah Khomeini often said is a reflection of the holy Qur’an. The Iranian constitution spells out that a leader cannot seek re-election after two terms. This law does not necessarily relate to a country or political party but provides insight on what Islam stipulates on good leadership i.e. it defines good leadership as one where a leader, to remain effective, does not reign endlessly!
Another point considered was a hypothetical one where a notorious leader, very unpopular with most, has influential contacts to enable him to always retain his position despite his lack of achievements. His influence will see him prevail at the cost of communal progress because there would be no barrier in the constitution to stop him.
In the meeting, it was questioned why we have to be dictated by a man-made constitution which can be changed endlessly to suit circumstances. A constitution in any organisation, including ours, is there to provide precaution for the well-being of an organisation.This is why it requires a 75% majority to remove an existent Clause, meaning, in other words, that a constitution is a noble document prepared by those who seriously wish to follow it because of the benefits that accrue from doing so. Any organisation which keeps on unduly changing its constitution in order to accomodate situations does so to its own detriment.
The main reason given at the Extra-ordinary meeting by those supporting the deletion was on why there should be an artificial restriction when the elections are, in any case, open for all to contest. The other argument was that wisdom grows with experience and that not all people ail with age. Then there was mention of the restriction being a colonial hangover whilst one speaker correlated the limitation to a situation where a good leader could be restricted and replaced by a bad leader. Various speakers also emphasised that running the World Federation is not a layman's job and thus why impose restrictions on ourselves when we already have a capable person to run the show?
The drawback in these arguments is that they consider leadership on a short-term basis and condones the fact that there are opportunity costs to electing one man, however able, to lead for three terms. An organisation which elects one leader continuously can easily be led into a state of disarray when the one person who alway led is no longer in a position to lead.
What the Africa Federation prefered is a set-up whereby a Chairman should take a break after a maximum of two terms to pave way for new leaders with new vision. With a regular change in leaders, the community would soon have various experienced individuals to lead one organisation or another at any time. With many potential leaders a healthy sense of competitiveness would also ensue and leaders would hence be expected to perform extremely well to be positively rated in opinion polls.
The point refering to the restriction being a colonial hangover was rather paltry because in colonial times there were no elections. Rather, Governors were assigned to rule subjugated territories for fixed periods.
With regard to the reference that a two-term limitation would restrict a good leader who could in turn be replaced by a bad leader, what if the situation is vice versa? This counter question presumably provides a valid answer.
These then were some of the conspicuous points that prompted the Africa Federation to support the retention of Clause 20.1. In the Kampala Supreme Council Meeting, 30 votes were in favour of preserving the Clause, 14 were against and one abstained. The voting was conducted by secret ballot.
Finally some shortcomings in the deliberations and the meeting were noted. These are highlighted hereunder:-
1] Two terms of the AF were referred to as being deconsolate and downcast simply to support the logic that the two-term restriction placed in the Africa Federation constitution is wrong. It is irreligious to unduly tarnish the image of another individual or organisation to justify one's point of view.
In fact it was Mulla Asgher as Chairman of the World Federation (which presumably would also mean his team!!!!!!) who in the 1991 Supreme Council meeting in Arusha inspired the then Chairman to take a further term after he had completed the first term. He defined the then Chairman as being virtuous and chaste and said the Community needed him even more in wake of the Somalia crisis. Video tapes are available. At the end of the same Chairman's term, he was inundated with acclamations (all recorded) for a spate of achievements.
2] The Rapacious tone and lewd language that prevailed in the meeting was misplaced. (sorry readers, can't repeat this here because I fear my computer could develop a virus! Editor).
3] To my knowledge on a point of order or a point of information, one is allowed to interrupt a speaker if it is felt that he is speaking something not based on facts. When it was felt, on the point of information, that one speaker was furthering his argument on conjecture with regard to the formulation of the mandate held by the Africa Federation (AF had democratically voted towards preserving Clause 20.1), the dishonouring of this interruption in the name of strictness was tragic. Meeting ethics require the presiding Chairman to at least allow the point of information to be ascertained and then acquaint the speaker on whether or not he or she could continue to speak on that subject. The denial of this right led to a formal protest by the Africa Federation.
4] The request for secret voting by the AF was not to hide their intentions (for which they already had a mandate) but to allow sincere voting. A secret ballot is the most democratic way of voting because it allows concientious voting without the fear of intimidation. And in a religious organisation, one would expect the general attitude to be one where fairness is not only professed but also seen to be practised. If a secret ballot was requested for, it would have been honourable to grant this request especially in the wake of the constitution being silent on the subject.
5] When the Chairman of the meeting, in the name of fairness, temporarily delegated the chair to his deputy following an observation by the Africa Federation Chairman that he was a potential beneficiary from the amendment, was it not wrong on the part of those who compelled him back, to do so? It would appear that this was not guidance but misguidance!
In life we all err and this is why pencils have erasers. What is important is that we sincerely analyse where we went wrong and make amends for the good of society at large, our community in particular and for the good of our well-being in this world and in the hereafter. When serving in the name of Allah (SWT) and for the sake of Allah (SWT) we are obliged to regulate our conduct to the way prescribed by Him. After all, the sincere servitude to Allah (SWT) is the essence of all our constitutions and so should it be.
Video tapes of the proceedings are available. The writer is prepared to accept and even publish constructive comments from readers for the sake of healthy dialogue. Sensationalism or accusations against personalities will not be accepted.