Experts on religion and international affairs engaged in an open discourse Wednesday, discussing the proper approach to encouraging democratization in countries that contain a predominantly religious population such as Pakistan.
Chris Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement, a faith-based organization that promotes sustainable environments for religious freedom worldwide, and Wallace S. Sayre Professor of Government Alfred Stepan endeavored to explore the ideological issues hindering the development of democracy in such nations. Led by forum moderator Peter Awn, dean of the School of General Studies and a professor of Islamic and comparative religion, the panelists responded to questions from the audience on various issues relating to Pakistan’s attempts at fostering democracy and instilling religious freedom. The global recession, the war in Afghanistan, recent cross-border missile attacks into Pakistan, and China’s emergence as a world superpower were all discussed as issues pertinent to Pakistan’s development.
Seiple and Stepan’s discussion comes at a particularly vital time for American politics when candidates’ religious affiliations—and the importance of those affiliations—have come into question. In contrast to the typical understanding of democracy as a separation of church and state, both panelists argued that democracy and religion didn’t need to be mutually exclusive.
“Not all religious freedom models have to look like us,” Seiple said.
Stepan agreed, but pointed to three “very solid democracies”—Indonesia, India, and Senegal—as examples of regions where religion and democracy coexist. These countries, Stepan says, have one common thread: a sizable Muslim population and “respect and recognition of all other religions.”
India, a country that is primarily Hindu, still “subsidizes the Hajj” for its Islamic constituency, Stepan explained.
The panelists said they believed that religious freedom in developing democracies such as Pakistan is achievable, so long as the government “keeps a principal distance.” But Stepan added that this separation does not need to extend to the point of non-involvement. Allowing untouchables into certain buildings in India is an example of this balance, as it supersedes religious rules in support of fundamental human rights the government has a duty to enforce.
Stepan made a point to comment on how fundamentalism does not preclude democracy, despite some conceptions that Middle Eastern religious fundamentalism is the reason democracy has been hard-won in some of its countries. Pointing to the results of a study he conducted in India, for Hindus, Muslims, and Christians alike “the greater the intensity of religious practice, the greater the intensity of support for democracy,” Stepan concluded.
Seiple closed the Forum with a warning to those in attendance about making a “monolith” out of Islam.
It is “only since 9/11 that we have rediscovered religion as a part of realpolitik,” he said. “We are in danger of making Islam the next bogeyman.”
“You can’t tell them how to think, but we can stand beside them while they think,” Seiple said.
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy