BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Religion-State Relations in Comparative Perspective. How much Reli
 gion can Democracy take? - Prof. Mirjam Künkler\, Princeton University
DTSTART:20111123T170000Z
DTEND:20111123T183000Z
UID:TALK33390@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Nicole Janz
DESCRIPTION:*Chaired by: Dr Sara Silvestri (POLIS)*\n\nContrary to the wid
 ely held assumption that most countries in the Middle East and North Afric
 a (MENA) have\nseparated mosque from state formally\, the MENA exhibits th
 e highest levels of\ngovernment interference in religion of any region in 
 the world. Rather than a\nsituation where the state and religion are separ
 ated\, we find that religion is highly\nregulated by the state. This is th
 e case across various types of political systems\n(republics versus monarc
 hies\, multi-party versus one-party states) and irrespective\nof the level
 s of political contestation in the region (e.g. Kuwait versus Saudi Arabia
 ).\nSecularism in the sense of an institutional separation between religio
 n and state is\,\nin other words\, absent from the region.\n\nYet\, we mus
 t bear in mind that even in long-standing democracies\, such a strict\nins
 titutional separation is the exception rather than the norm. Most European
 \ndemocracies\, but also India and Japan\, entertain high levels of interr
 elations\nbetween state and religion. Examples of this are public funds fo
 r religious schooling\,\nthe collection of religious levies through state 
 institutions\, the limited state\nrecognition of religious law\, public fu
 nding of religious authority to be employed\nin the army and hospitals\, a
 nd the distribution of public welfare through religious\norganizations.\n\
 nWhat is important from the viewpoint of democratic theory is not so much 
 the\nextent to which religion and state are separated\, but the nature of 
 their relationship.\nThus\, there are important differences in the level a
 nd quality of government\ninterference in religion between long-standing d
 emocracies on the one hand and\nauthoritarian regimes on the other. Not al
 l aspects of how the state interferes in\nreligion in countries of the MEN
 A is per se undemocratic. We need to distinguish\nbetween those aspects th
 at violate fundamental democratic qualities and those that\ndo not.\n\nWit
 h the wave of political change that has swept the MENA as a consequence\no
 f social mobilization\, the question of the future of religion-state relat
 ions has\nbecome an even more pressing concern. It is unlikely that future
  governments in\nEgypt\, Tunisia and Libya will refrain from continuing th
 e high levels of government\nregulation of religion. The governing militar
 y council of Egypt has already decided\nthat Art.2\, which identifies prin
 ciples of Islamic law as the most important source of\nlaw\, will be retai
 ned even as a new constitution will be drafted. Which of the existing\nele
 ments of government interference in religion are likely to weaken democrat
 ic\nrights standards\, which ones do not? In which areas may extant nexuse
 s between\nreligion and the state aid current political transitions\, and 
 in which areas are they\nlikely to undermine these transitions?\n\nIn a fi
 rst part\, the paper will give a comparative overview of the extent and na
 ture of\ngovernment interference in religion in the MENA. As part of this\
 , the paper will offer\ncomparative evidence from the MENA and other regio
 ns in the world drawing on\nindices that capture government interference i
 n religion.\n\nIn a second part\, the paper will give examples from existi
 ng democracies\, including\nthe five countries of the Muslim world that ha
 ve been undergoing democratization\nprocesses since the late 1990s (Indone
 sia\, Mali\, Senegal\, Turkey\, Albania)\, to\nelucidate which kind of rel
 igion-state-relation may be democracy-compatible.\nPopular religious commi
 tments can be addressed for instance by providing for\npublic support for 
 certain types of religious schooling. In the realm of public service\nprov
 ision and welfare\, religious organizations may have a pivotal role to pla
 y.\nNot only may they enjoy better access to the citizenry than state inst
 itutions\, they\nmay also aid a young democracy’s legitimacy by raising 
 the overall level of service\nprovision and thus citizens’ quality of li
 fe. Further\, Islamic political parties\, if\noperating in a democratic co
 mpetitive environment\, need not be illiberal players or\npush rights-redu
 cing agendas. They too\, may have a legitimation function in young\ndemocr
 acies by channeling public support for political Islam into institutions t
 hat\nwork within rather than against the system.\n\nBy contrast\, other as
 pects of the public role of religion may be less compatible\nwith democrac
 y. It is hard to see\, for instance\, how equality between Muslim and\nnon
 -Muslim citizenship can be guaranteed if Islamic authorities are veto acto
 rs\nin the constitutional or legislative processes. Similarly\, where reli
 gion is made\na requirement for citizenship\, or where religious minoritie
 s (both Muslim and\nnon-Muslim) are not legally recognized and their pract
 ices not constitutionally\nprotected\, freedom of religion is necessarily 
 limited. Where the state applies Islamic\nfamily law simultaneously with a
  civil code for non-Muslims\, without allowing an\nunsanctioned opt-out or
  opt-in possibility\, rights standards necessarily differ across\nreligiou
 s communities\, and equality before the law cannot be guaranteed.\n\nThere
  are\, in other words\, great qualitative differences in the consequences 
 of the\npublic incorporation of religion. As more and more publics in the 
 MENA successfully\neffect political change with the expectation of democra
 tic citizenship\, the differences\nbetween models of religion-state relati
 ons that are neither hostile to religion nor\ndemocracy-reducing\, and tho
 se that are\, need to be better understood. Only when\nthe choices and the
 ir consequences are clear\, can decisions on the constitutional\ndesign be
  made that reflect citizens’ medium- and long-term preferences. Politica
 l\nscientists\, legal scholars and practitioners will do well to further e
 lucidate the broad\nrange of religion-state relations that are compatible 
 with democracy\, but also the\nlimits of that range. As publics in the MEN
 A are grappling with crucial constitutional\nchoices now and in the coming
  months\, the paper contributes to an emerging debate\nabout the possibili
 ties and limits of democratic religion-state relations that will bear\nimp
 ortant consequences beyond the halls of academia.\n\n*Bio:*\n\nMirjam Kün
 kler (PhD\, Political Science\, Columbia University) is Assistant Professo
 r\nof Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. She has published two 
 books: with\nJulia Leininger\, On the Role of Religious Actors in Democrat
 ization Processes\, VS-\nVerlag für Sozialwissenschaften\, 2009\; and wit
 h Alfred Stepan\, Indonesia\, Islam and\nDemocracy\, Columbia University P
 ress\, i.pr.\, 2011. Her monograph that analyzes\nthe impact of contempora
 ry Islamic thought and social movement activism on the\ntransformation of 
 authoritarian rule in Iran (1989-2005) and Indonesia (1974-\n1998) shall h
 opefully appear in 2012. A special issue Künkler has edited on ‘New\nJu
 risprudential Approaches to the Question of Government in Iran’ is forth
 coming\nin Die Welt des Islams. In her next project\, Künkler turns to th
 e function of law in\nthe authoritarian politics of the Islamic Republic o
 f Iran\, as well as essays on the\nphenomenon of female religious authorit
 y in Iran.
LOCATION:Senior Common Room\, 17 Mill Lane\, Cambridge CB2 1RX
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR