Part 136: History of Mazula
History of MazulaIn 1653, the vast Iberian colonial empire was on the verge of breaking apart. The "oppressive" policies (mostly tax increases and restrictive laws) by the Iberian caliphs were really targeted towards a certain class, the bourgeoisie, but it is this bourgeoisie that laid the foundation for the various nationalist movements that sprouted up in the Iberian colonies. When the Qtizi Colonial Assembly met in Chorotega, there was a real chance that Qtizi would have declared independence once and for all. Many patriots declared that they were "ready" to defend the homeland against the Caliph.
They were disappointed. The Iberian Caliph made a deal with the Qtizi Colonial Assembly, reducing some taxes. But the prestige hit and criticism the Caliph received in his court for giving into the rebels meant that the stage was set. In 1657, the Iberian Caliph declared that he will no longer talk with secessionists, and the Wars of Independence began.
What many present-day historians do not mention was that one of these nationalist movements, based in the province of Mazula, had a conservative faction, called the Hizb al-Khadifa, who considered forming a rival Caliphate to the Iberians. The "Caliphate" government (which is very similar to a European "absolute monarchy") had a rich and glorious history in Islam (starting as the first government of the Sunni Muslim community, the Khulfa-Rashidun), and it was originally conceived as the only government that should rule the entire Muslim community. In practice, there were a variety of Muslim governments and nations, and when both the Caliphs of Morroco and Iberia signed their military alliance, the othorodxy of "Islamic unity" was destroyed forever. Nevertheless, the Caliphate served as a symbol of Islamic tradition and unity, linking the present day all the way back to the time of the Golden Age of Islam, and thus posed some sort of attraction to the conservatives who opposed the Iberian rulers, but not their style of rule.
However, the Mazulan Colonial Assembly, when it was called into session, was dominated by the liberals, the Al-Hizb al-Mutadarrij. While the conservatives believed that the Caliphate was not flawed, the Al-Hizb al-Mutadarrij disagreed vehemently, claiming that the true Islam supported popular participation and rule, not autocracy. The "Caliphate", as envisioned by the Khulfa-Rashidun, has been perverted; it has allowed for fallible men to set themselves like Kings and engage in tyrannical and oppressive acts. It is now time to start anew. The conservatives responded that al-Mutadarrij was introducing dangerous "innovations", but their pleas fell on deaf ears.
The liberals were backed by the modernizing ulema, who were aligned with bourgeoisie interests and knew that a powerful monarchy would ultiatmely reduce their own influence as well. When the Mazulan Ulema offically approved the "Fatwa On The Rights of Free Citizens and the Ruling of the Limitations of Government", the conservatives lost the battle over the Mazulan Colonial Assembly. The Mazulan Colonial Assembly voted to leave the Iberian Caliphate and establish the Islamic Republic of Mazula, which gave voting rights on the basis of wealth and abolished slavery. It was one of the most progressive republics at the time.
Al-Hizb al-Mutadrrij established an emergency government, offically to protect the new Republic from Caliph loyalists, but unoffically to suppress al-Khadifa. Censorship was put in place and the government had a right to "ban" certain parties from holding office. However, al-Mutadrrij was unable to get enough support to get rid of public meetings. al-Kahdifa did survive the liberal purges and worked as the offical opposition to the Islamic Republic. However, it did not had any chance of gaining real power and it was formally disbanded in 1905. Despite Mazula being a "Two-Party System", Al-Hizb al-Mutadrrij would end up ruling Mazula from its independence all the way up to 1909. A system of de facto aristocracy and corrupt nepotism was established within Mazula by al-Mutadrrij, as part of the means by which the liberal elite kept order.
Mazula itself fell prone to the Liberal Revolution that had wrecked Europe in this time period. The country's presses were censored, only the rich were able to vote, and all trade unions were banned in the country. As Mazula was under the firm grip of al-Mutadrrij, change had to come from the outside, and as a result, several radical revolts had to be put down violently. Though the Revolution itself was eventually suppressed, al-Hizb-al-Mutadrrij seemed to have "gotten the message". In 1842, the liberals called for a consitutional convention in order to end the Liberal Revolution. Though Wealth suffrage and the policy of Censorship still continued, the Mazulans officially gave up the right to ban political parties. The radicals, over the protests of the capitalist class, also legalized non-socialist trade unions within Mazula.
Mazulan Imperialism
It was around this time that the Mazulan liberals began entertaining the idea of Manifest Destiny, the belief that Allah have willed for Mazula to control all of America so as to impose "Islamic Liberalism" onto the population, and then slowly 'assimilate' the population to follow the Straight Path that will lead them to prosperity in this world and in the Hereafter. In January 26, 1848, Mazula declared its first Jihad, on the country of Vinland. It was a quick and clean war: in August 4, 1848, Vinland surrendered to Mazula and gave up four provinces. The territorial imperialism of Mazula became an incredibly popular policy and was generally supported by the Ulema (who saw such conquests as proving the 'Islamic' nature of the government), and al-Mutadrrij waged these Jihads as a way to bolster its legitimacy and prevent another Liberal Revolution. These Jihads were mostly targeted against the alliance of Vinland and the CCA, the last Jihad occuring (1920). Interestingly, it was always the Mazulans that started these wars, and for all the Jihads except for the last one, it always ended with Mazula winning and occupying territories. It is these Mazulan Jihads that were one of the major causes of discrediting the liberal American government and creating the rise of American fascism, as the Mazulan conquests fueled revanchism in the CCA.
Mazula however also interfered in Jadakal affairs. On February 1st, 1841, Mazula allied with Tarrbitz, a conservative Sultanate, and on September 11, 1848, Tarwajal, a liberal Sultanate, entered a Military Alliance with Mazula, which was continuously renewed. Though the idea of a liberal democracy allying with dictatoral Sultanates is today politically incorrect in the Mazulan universities, it was not seen as such within al-Mutadrrij, which believed in realpolitik and containing the Caliphate of Jadakal, who was seen as the biggest threat to Mazulan national security and Islamic liberalism.
In August 11, 1873, the Caliphate of Jadakal invaded Tarwajal, and Mazula entered into the war. Jingoistic rhetoric about liberal Mazula waging a holy war against reactionaries soon turned into despair when Tarwajal lost province after province. When Tarwajal gave up three provinces to Jadakal on January 25, 1874, the Mazulans had to contend with its first military loss. al-Mutadrrij saw this defeat as a political insult and attempted to fight back against it. In February 16, 1878, Jadakal launched another war of aggression, this time against Muhajedz, an ally of Tarwajal. Mazula, this time, won this war, and in March 27, 1887, Jadakal gave up seven provinces to Mazula, including the Rio Grande. To Mazulan anyalsts, the forces of Jadakal reaction was halted, allowing for Mazula to return to its time-honored practice of waging successful Jihads against Vinland and CCA. (Never mind that Muhajedz itself surrendered to Jadakal in August 18, 1879, a full 8 years before the actual end of the Mazulan conflict with Jadakal. Muhajedz has lost 16 provinces in the process, yet this was downplayed in the Mazulan propaganda as a mere "sacrifice".)
Mazula's relationship with Qtizi was very long and fruitful, with its first recorded diplomatic deal occuring on August 12, 1801. These deals, while sproadic, did eventually lead to a military alliance in May 16, 1858. Though documents about these deals are scarce, Mazula's relationship with Qtizi appeared to be that of a "patron-client" relationship, and Qtizi increasingly took on the role of the client. It was due to this undue influence that Mazula held on Qtizi that allowed the Mazulans to build the Panama Canal in 1900.
In July 16, 1889, al-Mutadrrij voted to make two important decisions. First, they had to decide what to do with the Sultanate of Barasya, which had just regained its independence in April 28, 1889 (they were previously annexed in October 14, 1882). The Sultanate of Barasya had previously refused to call in Mazula to defend the country from an invasion by Morroco in August 20, 1863, believing that doing so would leave it prone to the same influence that befallen Qtizi. This insult did not endear the Sultanate to the Mazulans. In addition, the Mazulans knew that Barasya was easy prey for the CCA and Morroco, and that it made sense for the Mazulans to "liberate" the territory before they struck first. The territorial ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Mazula meant that al-Mutadrrij voted to declare war on Barasya. Barasya was annexed on September 17, 1889.
The second decision was over the territory of Blåland. When Morroco attacked Barasya to reclaim at least some of its territory, it had to face off against Blåland, Barasya's ally. Blåland was easily annexed by Morroco, but the territory was then occupied by the CCA/Vinland coalition when they declared war on Morroco. Mazula then conquered the territory from the CCA/Vinland during its Jihads. While Mazulans usually believed in direct rule over the territories it had conquered in the Jihads, the Mazulan elite felt that Blåland was a special case and that it could not be 'assimiliated' into the Mazulan melting pot as other conquered territorie would. al-Mutadrrij agreed to grant Blåland independence. Mazula also formed a military alliance with Blåland the day when it granted it independence, thereby signaling how strategically important Blåland was, in terms of its position to Vinland. Blåland itself suffered from political instability, the electorate continually see-sawed between electing conservatives and liberals. About the only thing that unified Blåland though was its nationalism and connections with Vinland. The Mazulans attempted to convince Blåland to remain within the Mazulan sphere of influence, using both coercion and influence, but they both failed and generated resentment. Insulting its Mazulan patrons, Blåland signed a Military Alliance with Vinland in January 9, 1898. Blåland also voted to annex itself with Vinland in March 3, 1898.
The Blåland Incident served as a cautionary note to the idea of releasing states, and many imperialists urged for Mazula to never grant independence to any state ever again. Nevertheless, this was done one more time. In May 17, 1915, Mazula granted independence to Mansur (using the territory it gained from its war with Jadakal), and again signed a military alliance with it. This was done for the same reason as Blåland: the territory of Mansur cannot be 'assimiliated', and therefore must be let go. Mansur have been more loyal to Mazula (possibly due to the fact that they both share the same religion of Sunni Islam), and was electorally stable too (elected liberal politicans). However, the effects of the Great Depression has caused Mansur to drift away from liberalism and the Mazulan orbit. In 1935, the Mansurian population elected Al-Hizb al-Shuyu'i, the Communists. It would be interesting to see if the Communists would continue pursuing pro-Mazulan policies.
Socialism and the Last Mazulan Jihad
In 1882, al-Mutadarrij revised the constitution a second time. By this time, the legacy of the Liberal Revolution was rehabilited, and most intellectuals within al-Mutadarrij venerated the Liberal Revolution, as opposed to criticizing it. The system of Mazulan liberalism had grown stagnant and corrupt, and reformers sought to revitalize al-Mutadarrij and recapture the essential progressivism that they felt al-Mutadarrij stood for.
The vote was given to every citizen, male and female, so long as they were Berber Muslim. Censorship was also abolished, and the right to free speech was protected. Trade unions however were again banned: reformers believed that trade unions interfered with the free market and contributed to the various problems within Mazulan society. Instead, the reformers made token promises of social reforms, in the hopes that such reforms would render the need of trade unions moot.
There was no such thing as a "Socialist Revolution" in Mazula. The 1882 reforms, by granting universal suffrage, meant that there was little support for uprisings. Members of the banned trade unions decided to participate in the political arena instead, trying to pressure the national government instead of corporations to deliver on the prospects of social justice and equality. These members joined up with Al-Hizb al-Ishtiraki, a socialist political party that was previously formed in 1850, in the aftermath of the Liberal Revolution. al-Ishtiraki hoped to challenge the liberal social order and create a new progressive future.
Mazula politics received a brutal shock in 1909, when al-Mutadarrij lost elections to al-Ishtiraki. al-Ishtiraki's social policies appealed to the laborers and workers who were enfranchised by the universal suffrage laws passed in 1882. al-Mutadarrij's days as the rulers of Mazula was over, and soon afterwards, the party was disbanded. Remnants of the party (especially the 1882 reformers) soon reformed itself into the Hizb al-Wafd, and attempted to borrow some of the policies that made al-Ishtiraki popular in the first place.
al-Ishtiraki brought great and sudden change to the Mazulan landscape. The country, reliant on the uelma for legitimacy, was for the first time, marginalized, as al-Ishtiraki instead promoted secularism. al-Ishtiraki extended the right to vote for non-Muslims as well. The government implemented protectionist measures and intervened heavily in the economy. However, the most important policy of them all was al-Ishtiraki's anti-military policies.
The founders of al-Ishtiraki admired the German Modernizers, and believed that the constant military expansion have led to a lack of development of the Mazulan economy and a lack of aid to the poor and needy Mazulan populations. al-Ishtiraki reasoned that Vinland and America would never ever pose a threat to Mazula, and so decreased military spending is not only desirable, but incumbent on Mazula if it is to prosper as a progressive Islamic Republic.
The general consensus in the Mazulan universities was that the Socialists would have dominated Mazula forever had it not been for the Last Mazulan Jihad. On February 18th 1920, the Mazulans declared war on the CCA (now known as the American Federation), hoping for yet another quick victory. They were surprised to see how little military strength the Mazulans actually had after the Socialists' cutback, and how the fascist American government was able to industrialize enough to put off a fighting chance. By December 13th, 1920, the Mazulans surrendered to the CCA, and gave up most of the territories that it had previously conquered in all its previous Jihads. The humiliations that the CCA had inflicted onto the Mazula nation spelt the end of the Socialists. Social justice gave way to jingoistic nationalism.
Today, it is generally agreed that al-Ishtiraki's anti-Military policies harmed the military capacities of Mazula, to the extent that it likely led to Mazula's defeat in the Last Mazulan Jihad. To an extent, I still believe this to be true. However, I feel that I must make a correction to the historical record: socialism had already been 'killed' long before the Last Mazulan Jihad. A splinter of Hizb al-Ishtiraki, the Hizb al-Ittihad, while still outwardly socialist, felt that the Ishtiraki reforms were violating Islamic traditions and cultural norms. To these people, al-Ishtiraki was morphing into a second al-Mutadarrij, a political power only interested in dominating the country instead of governing it. Backed by the clergy (and in some cases, the very minorities who the Ishtiraki had granted citizenship too), al-Ittihad won elections in 1918, promising to moderate the excesses of Itthiad while still promoting social justice. "Laissez faire" capitalism was restored, the country began outwardly promoting Islamic morality (to an even greater extent than al-Mutadarrij ever did), minorities were granted only limited citizenship (and loses the right to vote), and the military was again fully funded. The only policy that was kept was that of protectionism. Ittihad's policies were actually a 'conservative' retrenchment after the socialist advances.
In 1920 though, even the "moderation" of al-Ittihad could not save the party from the wrath of the voters. In 1923, the Hizb al-Wafd campaigned on a promise of returning to the Golden Age of Mutadarrij, where Mutadarrij had led Mazula to continued conquests against Vinland and CCA. Hizb al-Wafd however mostly followed in the footsteps of Ishtiraki, having borrowed most of its policies. The moderate relationship the government had with the clergy during Mutadarrij was restored, and the government supported the military heavily. But al-Wafd also had protectionalism, and interventionism, and it restored the right of non-Muslims to vote. Hizb al-Wafd realizes that its own grasp in Mazulan electoral politics is fragile, and another military loss in a war against CCA would lead to electoral defeat at home. Hizb al-Wafd funds the military heavily in hopes of avoiding this "worst-case".