Religion and politics: How far the two can go together?

What religion is about: In a sociological sense religion comprises of a set of ideology and rituals. Ideology circumscribes various things what may include the mystery of universe as well as how to behave with a neighbour. But there is not one religion in the world so ideological difference in interpretation is a natural consequence.

Meeting the functional needs of society is an important dimension of religion but one cannot judge the matter without referring to history. We are sufficiently informed about the emancipation roles of different religions in different societies at different periods of time. In Bangladesh a number of peasant and tribal struggles were mobilised under banner of religion. You may recall 'Fakir Bidroho', 'Sanyas Bidroho' or the 'Munda Bidroho' in the colonial phase of Indian history. The ideology of brotherhood propagated in Christianity weakened largely the divisive social fabric of slavery. Certainly, there is also dysfunction coming from the fold of religion. For example, communal violence is closely related to the social implications of religious division. In the words of radical thinker Karl Marx, religion is akin to false consciousness as it robs off the revolutionary vigour of the suppressed class.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

What politics is about: Politics is about power, rights and decision making. Through politics it is decided how power will be organised in a polity. To whom it will go and who will have the authority to control the society. Politics also decides the rights of the members of the society, among themselves as well as between the state and the people. Power has become an integral part in the process of decision making. For example, we give the responsibility to a party or a group who would protect the lives, property and peace of the people. As the society progresses the gamut of decision making widens. Scarce resource allocation is an important agenda in the modern time in the political decision making.

Politics is also about the state. In history state began its journey from the tribal stage in the person of a headman. It took many years for the emergence of democracy that has brought a different dimension in the body of politics. The importance of power structure or the unequal distribution of power did not cease to exist even in the socialist phase of human history reminding us that functioning of society and polity will automatically call for the existence of power structure, henceforth politics.

As we notice ideology and ritual in the body of religion it is also there in politics. The issue of religion comes into attention when you deal with the ideological part of the politics, which we would deal with in one of the following sections.

Relative status of politics and religion: Radical thinker like Karl Marx took a very clear-cut position by saying that religion, politics are parts of the superstructure. He assigned the primacy to the production relations with the claim that the nature of politics or the importance of religion will be determined by the necessity of the production process.

In the functionalist sense which was much popular in the parley of Western Sociology (a la Parsons), it may be shown that religion provides normative inspiration to politics as secularism may also do the same. As a part of culture religion may supply information in the ideological sense that may wheel the politics. However in a cybernetic relationship politics may also supply input to culture including religion. For example, political conflict between two religious sects requires change in the ideological contour of a culture.

Ideology and politics: If by politics we mean (in a minimal sense) achieving certain socioeconomic goals then you have the relevance of ideology. For example, what kind of resource distribution pattern we are opting for or how much opportunity will be allowed for free thinking may be a part of ideological goals. The role of the state, the rights of the citizen, role of bureaucracy or the modes of the transfer of power all are issues central to political thinking and one cannot provide universal standards in this regard. For example, in monarchy the transfer of power takes place in hereditary rules while in democracy the people choose it. In socialism it is altogether a different concept. There is a role of ideology in politics and in this process religion will be a candidate. Now we have to examine what is the practical and theoretical implication of a situation where religion dictates politics.

State, religion and capitalism: We have concrete historical evidence to formulate our opinion on this particular aspect. We have to look into the history of Europe to perceive the point. Throughout medieval age in Europe what coincided with feudalism we noticed the ascendance of church to a point from where it controlled the state. In many occasions the decisions of the monarch have been overruled by the church, rendering the state a subservient institution. Although the feudal monarch and the church could maintain this convenient relationship for a long, at one point it did not work effectively. Interference of the church reduced the power of the state and the monarch.

The spread of capitalism or the expansion of market could not adjust with the supremacy of the church over state. Previously church was aligned with the feudal class challenged by the rising bourgeois class. From the point of class structure capitalism and church came into conflict.

Enlightenment was one of the important ideological basis of capitalism. It is said that the scientific attitude was the outcome of the development of enlightenment. Rationalisation became the basis for the evaluation of our different thoughts, including ideology. Need arised to rationalise religion itself. The emergence of Calvinism, the separation of state and churche are all the products of the development of capitalism. In the opinion of some sociologist (e.g., Srinivas) British colonialism brought a number of changes in the religious structure in India previously not possible in a pre-capitalist framework.

Democracy, religion, market and the legitimacy of power: In Bangladesh or for that matter in the Indian sub-continent the advents of democracy, as a political ideology was an outcome of colonial politics. In other words, the objective need (e.g., market economy) for democracy did not arise in the society although democratic institution (e.g., parliament) was implanted here. And this is one of the major factors why religion often comes into the centre stage to dictate politics. We have to understand why market economy cannot adjust with the sectarian politics of religion. Market economy means the market of labour, capital and commodity. It cannot afford to be choosy about the religious background of labour, capital or commodity while making an economic plan. Take the case of Indonesia and Malaysia, they could not afford to allow the religion dictate the labour migration and hence women labour from these two countries visiting abroad to fetch income. On the other hand, Bangladesh has imposed different types of restriction on the movement of women labour abroad. It has happened because we have not been successful to settle the issue of religion vis a vis capitalistic development. Strong dilemma is still surfacing in the policy making process.

In democracy any ideology is open to questioning including religion. In a democratic milieu one can also raise a question on the merit or demerit of an ideology, its logical basis. For a religious ideology to be acceptable in democracy it has to pass the above tests. But if an ideology does not allow such scrutiny then it becomes incompatible with the democratic framework and transform into autocracy. Such is the case with religion. Most religions are based on strong beliefs, which are not open for questioning. As far as religion remains within the boundary of personal beliefs it does not create any problem but once you bring it into public forum and particularly in politics such rigidity is not possible in democracy. Since politics deals with the earthly matters continuous criticism is an integral part. It does not matter how superior is your ideology you have to serve the demands of the people and again it is closely related to the cultural development of the people.

In a capitalist society as you have the working class, you have also the middle class. There is class effect on the charter of needs. For example, freethinking is not a number one priority in the agenda of the working class, for them the establishment of economic rights is an immediate priority. But the middle class may feel more suffocated when you deny them the right to free thinking. History shows that the movement against autocracy has been spearheaded by the middle class and one of the reasons is their displeasure with the absence of the right to free thinking. We should not forget that modernity begins with a number of features that include enlightenment, positive thinking, market economy as well as democracy. We can provide a host of examples on the functional flexibility of the bourgeois ideology, for example the invocation of welfare state all over Europe or the establishment of the Frankfurt school of critical thinking in Germany. Unfortunately religious regimes do not have the permissiveness to interact with the critical appreciation.

Another fundamental contradiction between democracy and religion is this, while religion claims its legitimacy in divine source, democracy in people and reality. In modern times you cannot demand immunity to criticism being blessed with the divine ordain. Now performance matters. Once religious ideology is brought to the mundane world, its sanctity is diluted. Just think the practices (e.g., violence) of the religious parties in Bangladesh to establish their constituency. Once the religious parties behave the way other parties do people cannot distinguish between the two segments. The problems lie in the fact that it is some people who are engaged in the implementation of religious ideology in the domain of politics. They are not above human limitations (e.g., greed, jealousy, lust) and the mistakes committed by the non-religious parties are also committed by them. Sometimes it is worse than that. Just review the role of the religious parties in the liberation struggle of Bangladesh, because of religious commitment they aligned with the discredited Pakistani regime endorsed their atrocities and became a partner ignoring the popular demand of the time.

Cultural pluralism: Assumed superiority of a religion does not end the existence of other religions. On the other hand a new debatable premise emerges when the claim of superiority is made. Using rational indicators it is not possible except resigning to blind faith. Now if the blind faith is the basis for the claim of superiority then you cannot bring it into the realm of politics, based on rational indicators judging the merits and demerits of the political ideology and the performance of the actors. You have to accept cultural pluralism. Even it is true that religion has a function in providing spiritual space its relevance to public sphere is not so prominent, what politics is. Against the background of cultural pluralism it is to be examined how far removal of secularism or making Islam the state religion in Bangladesh has increased the social cohesiveness or the efficiency of the state to deal with the global culture in an effective manner. The emergence of global culture will release further pressure on monolithic thinking and will provide more and more the utility of cultural pluralism dissociating religion from politics.

Monirul I. Khan is Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Dhaka.