Disciplining religion: the role of the state and its consequences on democracy

Abstract

This article presents the concept of hegemonic religion and its relationship with democracy. This concept entails not only a certain type of institutional relation between state and religion but, more importantly, a kind of national culture with religion at its core. Utilizing Norbert Elias’s figurational sociology, this article analyses how postcolonial states have built a national habitus that plays a decisive role in the politicization of religion. It focuses on examples from Islam and Buddhism and discusses how hegemonic types of politicised religions have negative impacts on democracy.

Keywords:

• Habitus
• hegemonic religion
• nation-state

Notes

1. The adjective “core” refers to an essentialised vision of culture and identity, which often drove political reforms (Duara 1995: 239–75).

2. Additionally, it is important to note that even after World War I, Pan-Islamism did not promote indiscriminate hatred or rejection of the West. The reformulation of pan-Islamism as a categorically anti-Western ideology happened after World War II, forming the basis for anti-modernist and reactionary positions of future Islamist groups, such as al-Qaeda.

3. Millets were religious communities regulated by their own civil rules. They were the cornerstone of the Ottoman political system.

4. Signed on 12 May 1881 between France and Mohammad as-Sadiq Bey, rendering Tunisia a French protectorate.

5. It is also influenced by international and transnational forces (Salafis/Muslim states/international organisations), which is outside the per view of this article.

6. “Groups claiming independent authority to interpret Islamic scriptures and transmit Islamic culture undermine one of the basic foundations of the state’s moral legitimacy: its protection of the Islamic heritage, including the responsibility to provide children and youths with trustworthy religious guidance” (Starrett 1998: 5).

7. Pittman and Chishtie examine how Islam penetrated the mathematics curriculum in Pakistan. For example, a typical mathematics exercise addresses inheritance and distribution of an estate. In these problems, the widow is given an eighth of the estate and the sons and daughters receive the remainder, with the sons receiving twice the shares as the daughters (Daun and Walford 2004: 113).

8. Social Religious Hostility Methodology: Hostility level based on 13 primary questions, scored between 0 and 1. Each country’s results were divided by 1.3, yielding a total score on a 1–10 scale. Each country was given a level with “Low” being from 0–1.4, “Moderate” from 1.5–3.5, “High” from 3.6–7.1, and “Very High” from 7.2 and higher. Questions are available at http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/RestrictionsV-SHI.pdf. Political Religious Hostility Methodology: Hostility level based on 20 primary questions, scored between 0 and 1. Each country’s results were divided by 2, yielding a total score on a 1–10 scale. Each country was given a level with “Low” being from 0–2.3, “Moderate” from 2.4–4.4, “High” from 4.5–6.5, and “Very High” from 6.6 and higher. Questions are available at http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/RestrictionsV-GRI.pdf

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jocelyne Cesari

Jocelyn Cesari is a Professor of Religion and Politics at the University of Birmingham and Georgetown University.