The deputy premier's (DPM) pronouncement that Malaysia is an Islamic state has sent shock waves across the nation, as expected. Already we are measuring swords between detractors and advocates of the 'Islamic state'.

He chose an opportune time to unleash his well contrived strategy. What better than to issue the statement when opening the 'International Conference on the Role of Islamic States in a Globalised World'? If Malaysia is not an Islamic state, what business would she have at the conference?

Hence his insistence that "we have never, never been secular...we are an Islamic state" (Bernama, July 17) falls into place, as he countered a reporter's claim that Malaysia is going secular. And appropriate though it may seem, it is not as innocuous as we would like to believe.

Why do I describe this as a well contrived strategy? Given recent debacles of the government and with the 12th general election looming ever closer, what could be more expedient than to distract the entire nation, nay plunge and embroil it, in a raging dispute over the very nature of this 50-year-old nation?

If it worked well the first time, when the issue was exploited by then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad in September 2001, it should work equally well again.

Why? Well, those who are gullible (read opposition parties, civil society groups and some sincere partners of Barisan Nasional, BN) are still as vulnerable as before. If the parameters remain constant, the same approach should deliver the same results. So the DPM thinks.

For as long as any notion of an Islamic state is anathema to non-Muslims and a secular state is equally abhorrent to the Muslim constituency, the Umno-BN regime will continue to exploit this dichotomy as the best 'bogey' to keep the nation divided and subdued under its hegemony.

This is the greatest Malaysian paradox. Perpetrators turn saviours, while citizens offer them a fresh mandate every election. This is truly and uniquely Malaysian.

Something must be done to introduce sanity and intellectual acumen in a bid to end this acrimonious contestation. Continuing the debate in the old way would be counter-productive to every effort to reform the nation.

Already the DAP is organising an English-language forum entitled 'An Islamic State After 50 Years?', parading on the panel everyone except those representing the most ardent advocate of the Islamic state. Had someone from this group been included, it would have added to the vigour and rigour of the debate.

The plethora of writings by distinguished columnists and academics have been no less inimical and injurious to the cause of reform, to say the least. Both are waging a jihad (crusade) and equally adamant in defending their democratic rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

Rape of democracy

I can empathise and concur with most of their arguments, be it historical, legalistic, moral or intellectual in nature, and from both sides of the divide. That said, it is neither necessary nor fruitful to comment or even prolong this debate.

If you think I'm trying to appease everyone, you are entirely in error. On the contrary, I am almost at war with everyone, especially those advocating or espousing reform but who take others on the path of self-destruction in a 'zero-sum' contest.

No amount of debate will substantively change anything in the Federal Constitution. It neither secularises nor 'Islamises' the constitution any more than what it is. We can talk till the cows come home, but it won't change the fabric of this embattled nation. In fact, it would only deepen various fault-lines, aggravate prejudice and further delay the renewal of a genuine nationhood.

This nation is a constitutional monarchy supposedly practising a constitutional democracy. The constitution has evolved through various phases of history dating back to well before independence. It has provided for mutually exclusive constraints and demands within our plural society.

Amendments to the constitutional amendments have led to a uniquely dual or parallel implementation of judicial processes not seen anywhere else. It is far from a perfect document but is nonetheless the supreme law of the land (Article 4).

What is grossly wrong is that this democracy has been relentlessly raped and trampled upon by the powers-that-be. It is this crisis that is most deserving of our focus so that we can redeem an opportunity for genuine democratic reform.

Given the multitude of challenges at hand, we must not be deluded, sidetracked or distracted from standing united in addressing the real issues of the nation. We should not be swayed into the alley of self-destruction through unending semantics and rhetoric instigated by inept leaders.

The nation deserves a mutually respecting citizenry celebrating our multi-cultural heritage and religious plurality, so as to enhance efforts towards national unity and integration. Only a vibrant and genuine democratic state will provide for every citizen to advocate their respective ideological commitments and defend the right of others to exercise theirs.

This is the true defining criterion of a democrat. Pursuing this should remain our enduring mission in unity. Now will the true democrat please stand up!
DR DZULKIFLI AHMAD is director, PAS Research Centre.