The relationship between religion, politics and the nation-state is in this paper closely linked to the principles that create political legitimation and the basic character of a state. The analysis of this entanglement seems to be necessary, especially due to the popular belief that in the light of the decolonization process Pakistan and Israel, after 1947 and 1948, represent the sole states that after a legacy of British rule came into existence on the basis of religion or rather, only because of their religion.
This paper identifies the main principles of legitimation understood as the State's ideology on which these States were originally based but at the same time generated intrinsic tensions for their future development. Further, the framework that allows religion to play an essential role not only in the State's ideological setup but also in society and politics will be defined.
Malte Gaier is a PhD candidate at the University of Erfurt, Germany. He is focusing on Islamic Studies.
To continue reading this paper, please download the attached PDF.
Read related material from atlantic-community.org members:
- 4
April 7, 2011
Amarjyoti Acharya
The crucial difference between clergy seeking to control people and the state's exercises to control people (as state-building exercises as well as nation-building exercises) do remain in the realm of identity politics. The degree & nature of control sought, as well as its objectives differentiates between them as well as states. The problem with the reification of any idea is that it comes to denote the "natural" in terms of imagination as well as identity-issues for most people. Which is basically referring back to Rebecca Grant's formulation of identity-politics in two sets of questions: 1. The basic individual question of "Who am I?" and the attempts of others to influence the outcome/answer to this basic question.
The crucial difference between democracies (as commonly understood and accepted) and religious nationalism (apart from the particular psycho-dynamics they unleash) lies in the degree of control they seek to establish on the answers/outcomes of the individual identity question of "Who am I?". Democracies usually tend to leave the individual/unique identity outside their spheres and attempt to influence the outcomes/answers to the social/group identity. This is usually done in non-intrusive manners, while it (states as democracies) refers to the security of its primary function of keeping the pre-state Hobbesian imaginations/experiences at bay. As things go - it is also usually done with keeping choices open. Religion seeks to establish a control that seeks to influence the individual question of identity, while it holds as 'fait accompli' an imagined or real social/group identity! The recognition by states, as democracies, of the contractual agreement as well as the absence of difference between a state & its citizens (except for the spheres of responsibilities that usually is by choice, barring few areas deemed necessary by the state for its existence and common good - like compulsory military training, etc. The degree of responsibility the state bears and 'successfully' executes towards the welfare of its citizens usually mark the degree of "voluntary" obligation a citizen has in undertaking the exceptions that comes from an absence of the sense of alienation of the citizen from the state.) usually marks or should mark the state's efforts at state-building/nation-building.
The difference is crucial: between the control religious nationalism seeks and the attempts of the democratic state to influence the outcomes/answers to the essentially individual & personal question of Identity: "Who am I?": both in the personal (personal/unique identity) realm as well as the social (social/group identity) realms. The manners in how they go about it also marks the differences between states as well as "societies/communities/etc."
One interesting observation in passing: The vedic/Vedantic education system is popularly said to have sought to complete this identity issue. First was the question: Who am I? The answer was given: You are the cosmic creator. It was left to the student/disciple to reach that realization. Quite Zen like, if you may. The notion of any state or identity boundaries dissolve in this fabulous answer to the perennial question of identity: Who am I? Quite a contrast, if you may, between religious nationalism & some traditions. of course, the individual freedom remains paramount here. As it does for the democratic state with all its limitation vis-a-vis identity as the cosmic creator! When dealing with lesser issues over identity and the various politics over it: quite 'constructivist' if you may,