What role should religion play in democratic politics?

My 2018 Cambridge University entry for the R A Butler prize

What has become ever clearer to those observing society, politics and religion is that people have become more open in more recent years about which “tribe” they actually belong to — and religion is a significant factor in shaping their views and perceptions. Modern political events have surprised the world include, inter alia, the 2016 the USA Presidential Election, Britain’s European Union Referendum and the unrest in Catalonia are now widely seen to be expressions of such tribes, ideologies and identities. Related to this, is a pertinent question, that is, indeed whether religion ought to play a role, be it significant or otherwise, in democratic politics. What is important to note is the historical and social context of this very question. In Western Society, the Enlightenment Era saw a rejection of state power becoming intertwined with the Church, which resulted in the formation of secular states in countries like France and America — which either have a system of enforced separation between the church and the state (‘laicité’); or alternatively the non-intervention of government in religion. Even in nominally theocratic Britain, over the past few decades politicians in this country have attempted to segregate politics from the individual or collective faith. This idea was encapsulated by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s advisor, Alastair Campbell, who remarked in 2003: “We don’t do God.” What this clearly indicates is the common modern-day, perspective of religion being an obstacle to democratic politics, rather than a supplement.

Should religion be reintroduced back into the political arena and play a greater role in democratic politics? It can be argued that this development should not occur due to the nature of ‘faith’ and/or ‘blind faith’ — the strong conviction in the spiritual, rather than the political practicality of dealing with a mass of individuals with different views, beliefs and convictions. Religion should be distinguished from politics which is the effective and practical governance of people. Since the Second World War, the formation of the United Nations and the decolonisation of the Empire, there appears to be significant shift from idiocracy governance that is what is ‘good of the whole’ or ‘the good of the nation’ to the recognition of the idiosyncrasies of the individual and his unalienable rights- originally championed by Act Utilitarianist Jeremy Bentham. The desire to pursue religion and politics together is not only philosophically unsound in the modern Western World, but it is, in practical terms in a multi-religious society, unrealistic.

The recognition, or acceptance of the concept of the individual fundamental, Human Rights in the modern society means, one should be accepted no-matter what their religion or sexual preference is. Does this ideology not indicate that a dominated religious party that takes up political office is wrong? Does this not show that individuals can now associate with each other on a more local level, so that the ‘tribes’ are smaller. This perhaps explains Scotland, Wales, Catalonia and even Cornwall seeking their own individual identities. Catalonia and Spain are strong Catholic regions where religion has not played any part in the desire for independence.

There are various arguments which support the idea that religion should play a role in democratic politics. With reference to the United Kingdom, proponents point to the fact that constitutionally speaking the nation is a Christian country by law, as religious language is ingrained into ‘our society’, so much so that it cannot be alienated from our daily lives. For example, the seven-day working week, and Sunday Trading laws and academic terms based on Michaelmas and Trinity which come directly from the Christian Bible subconsciously dictate our lives, beliefs and in part indoctrinates us. Religion’s influence percolates through many other aspects of society, whether we realise or not, and so it is not unreasonable to make it more explicit in the democratic sphere. With regards to Britain’s legal system, for example, witnesses and defendants are called to the testify under oath — which requires them to swear by their deity. In schools, children are required to undertake mandatory religious studies until the age of 14. For those who choose to take it further for A level, it is compulsory to have a third of the course on development of Christian thought. As such, religion and the conceptual application cannot be divorced from everyday life — it has even shaped the principles which we adopt to discuss and deal with on a routine basis. It is trite that the establishment of Parliament was the political force that allowed leading noblemen to curtail the absolute power of the sovereign, which was justified in theological (religious) terms, “the divine right of kings.” Previously the unelected, non-democratic, monarch played the role of both the Head of the Church and the Head of State. But this clearly did not sit well with earlier ideology from Ancient Greece, ‘the rule of law, not the rule of man’, which already hinted at the rights of the individual.

Today, the influence and policy of the Church of England are ingrained in the British Legal System and can be identified by the existence of the Lords Spiritual, who sit in the House of Lords. Nevertheless, multi-religious Britain has allowed the appointment of a number of different non-christian religious leaders into Parliament. It therefore follows that the House of Commons, the lower elected house, be subject to some form of religious representation. Aside from this historical precedent to support the greater involvement of religion in democratic politics, proponents also argue that religious affiliations must be represented in democratic politics to reflect the faith and values of the electorate, or at least exist as a pressure group. However, it is now a well known fact that for the last few decades, the number of persons actually attending church has fallen dramatically to only 2% of the population in Britain and religious representation would therefore not be truly democratic.

The Civil Rights Movement in America in the 1960s, for example, was galvanised by individuals such as Martin Luther King; a Baptist minister who justified his support for desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s with his firm belief in Christianity, that thought the inherent equality of mankind: man is said to be made in the image of God (‘Imago Dei’) in Genesis 2, and St. Paul carries this message forward: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). He campaigned vigorously across the USA, most notably invoking religious rhetoric in his “I Have A Dream” speech. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected to the Oval Office, in part due to the activism of the Moral Majority, a coalition of religious voters with conservative views on social issues. On Election Day, around 5 million evangelical voters who had not voted previously, cast their votes for Reagan. This was due to being inspired by his promise of “states rights” — an implicit agreement that conservative states such as Texas or Tennessee could legislate on issues such as abortion separately from more liberal

states such as New York or California. Faith, and the social implications of faith, were clearly an important factor in how millions of Americans voted. Therefore, we can see that ‘faith’ and/or religion has always been intertwined with democratic politics and political action. Outside the USA, one can point to examples where faith and/or religion has played an instrumental role in shaping political action. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran priest and head of the Confessing Church, led a campaign of resistance against the Third Reich, on the basis that it had strayed too far beyond God’s divine law. Indeed, Christian theology beginning with Thomas Aquinas had made the distinction between human law, introduced by the state, and God’s divine law. Theologians such as St Thomas Aquinas promoted the idea that Christians ought to disobey Human Laws which came into contradiction with Divine Law, a concept which Bonhoeffer took inspiration from. Bonhoeffer furthermore went as far as to advocate tyrannicide to overthrow a regime which had begun to oppress the downtrodden, for whom Jesus in his time fought for as both a political and religious figure. With this in mind, it is critical that we should approach political issues of the day with these values, given that they are crucial to many people — especially with regards to immigration and the economy — and people’s religious faith should be allowed to determine their position, as they are guiding principles towards creating a certain kind of society. The fact that throughout history we have tied our political principles to theological values means that we ought to consider more that these should be included more in our discourse today.

Having said that the current ideology of the majority in many ways contradicts the conservative teachings of the church, which are outdated and impracticable for life in the modern word and modern socio-economic society. See for examples the heated debates on abortion, suicide and euthanasia, homosexuality, marriage, divorce and polygamy, to name but a few.

Taking a stand against programmatic secularism, proponents of religion in secular states also argue that there is no evidence to show that religion should not play a role in democratic politics — when religion was cast out of politics, it was due to theocracies having existed. Nowadays, in our age of democratic it seems reasonable recognise it as a pressure group and to allow it back in mainstream politics.

As stated above, the Enlightenment period saw the rejection of the Church being tied to the state — a power relationship which held too much sway or control over the population — leading to a rejection of religion as a whole in politics. However, what must be made clear is that at the time, these Western nation states were absolute monarchies. Since they have transitioned into representative democracies, the original purpose of removing religion from politics (i.e to counteract the autocratic practices of the Church) has been fulfilled. One can argue that religion could be allowed to play a greater role in democratic politics due to the simple fact that there is no such danger, and there is a proportion of the electorate who wish it. Aside from the Church of England in Britain, ‘religions’ are separate, charitable organisations which do not hold any sway on the makeup of the government.

Although these arguments articulated so far may appear convincing, what must first be considered is whether religion is as monolithic as at first glance. Firstly, there is a diversity of belief even within particular religions, meaning no affiliation can claim to truly represent all of their adherents accurately (and faithfully). In Christianity, for example, there are numerous denominations which interpret the religious scripture, like the Bible in different ways, leading to radically different positions on social and economic policy. It is of course well known that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all stem from the Abrahamic origin, but the all diverged into different ideologies and have gone to war over their differences. As regards modern day Christianity, one need only simply compare the Catholic theological view on abortion to that of a liberal Protestant and one can clearly see how this translates into a split politically speaking.

Secondly, there is a great difference between the types of claims that one makes in the political sphere and in the religious sphere. The philosopher of language, Ludwig Wittgenstein, would describe these two as separate “language games” people “play”. The truth claims religious adherents make are dependent not on empirical evidence, but on faith — and express a subjective reality not necessarily derived from facts in the way we are familiar with them. In democratic politics the claims people make are policy proposals which are grounded in data, derived through the scientific method, intended to deliver concrete, measurable results for the people. The “game” in this instance is the claim expressing a relationship with verifiable evidence. Faith cannot deliver such a relationship — however it has never claimed to do so: albeit it has, like the ten commandments, they have a set of fundamental rules or ‘rights’ that society can univerally accept and live by. The purpose of faith is to understand the relationship between the believer and his or her God that is by definition outside time and space, outside the realm of earthly policy. It would surely make more sense even for the believer to separate religious faith from politics, given that they each address separate truth claims.

Additionally, one must also consider that many religious adherents consider their faith a personal choice rather than a universal standard of truth. The variety and diversity of religions in the world means that believers are more inclined to see their faith as something not necessarily vital for the rest of the nation to follow, but in pragmatic terms something that “works for them.” This way of thinking coincides with the growing number of younger people who believe in a higher power, but who see themselves as “spiritual” rather than “religious” due to their rejection of the monopoly on truth religions are perceived to claim. In the United States, for example as seen through Figure 1, over a quarter (27%) of the population as a whole sees themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” The ascent of this trend mirrors the decline of Americans choosing to identify as “religious and spiritual” (from 59% to 48%). If trends in our country continue along this line, we will have a population in the UK made up of those who either deny the existence of a deity or eskew organised religion. Therefore, both of the said groups would intrinsically reject the greater involvement of religion at the democratic level — making any push to integrate religion into politics a meaningless exercise. Indeed, A ComRes poll commissioned by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association has found broad support for separating religion and politics, at around 62% across the board and 56% of Christians.

Figure 1

It is also worth noting that key theologians in the past have emphasised the separation of religion and politics. St. Augustine of Hippo, a key developer of Christian theology, particularly with regards to the Fall, argued that Christians are caught between two Cities: the City of Man and the City of God. The material, contingent City of Man is filled with sin and deprivation whereas the City of God is eternal paradise. The believer should not feel compelled to shape God’s commandments into earthly laws, as they are bound for paradise anyway, and there is no real point in attempting to make the Kingdom of God an earthly entity (there is too much sin in the world). Although theologically speaking it is an incredibly pessimistic view of mankind, what this clearly translates into is a separation between religious and political duties — such that the believer is compelled not to intertwine the two. This furthermore backs up the idea that religion is more a personal commitment than a roadmap to worldly prosperity — and so from a religious perspective should not be integrated with worldly politics.

Finally, what must also be considered is the fact that religion is a major factor behind the propagation of identity politics. People historically have rallied behind their religion as a means of asserting their political dominance and power. A case which highlights this is the religious divide in countries like Iraq, where there is a marked split between the Sunni and Shia Muslim sects. President Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, suppressed the Shia people politically and socially before his downfall in the mid 2000s. In the post-Hussein years Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki took sectarianism to new heights, refusing to send soldiers into Sunni and Kurdish areas of Iraq where ISIS insurgents were expanding. Even in democratic politics, where this is most evident is in Northern Ireland: tensions between the Catholics and Protestants are still clearly visible after centuries of division. Political parties gain support not due to their actual policy positions but due to the religious background of the leadership and key tenets. The Democratic Unionist Party, for example, are hardline social conservatives and unionists who derive their support from Protestants. It was formerly led by the Rev. Ian Paisley, a Presbyterian minister. By contrast, Sinn Fein are the pro-republican, socialist alternative that take their votes from Catholics in the North. Why this is such an issue is that this is not typical politics in its more refined sense, but more a form of tribalism — “our way of life versus yours” — and religion plays a major role in facilitating this divide. As such from a pragmatic perspective it is best that religion be excluded from democratic politics. If it were to be encouraged within the democratic sphere there would be the possibility of greater social division within the nation, with alliances being formed not on the basis of philosophical agreement, but on the basis of religious membership — a dangerous game to play. Besides this, greater involvement of religion in the democratic sphere would chip away at the notion that there is a single, fundamentally British culture in this nation. With Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Sikhs all representing their aspirations and values in the democratic process, and often at odds with each other, the sense of community between citizens becomes eroded and fractured. Our politicians do come from religiously diverse backgrounds, it is true, however first and foremost they represent their constituents in Parliament, who in turn are of different faiths or hold no strong faith and/or religion.

In conclusion, faith should de jure be kept as separate as possible from democratic politics. Although, de facto, political campaigners have taken their faith-based principles and applied them towards noble causes in the democratic system in the past, it is ultimately not only philosophically unsound to desire greater involvement of religion, but also practically problematic. Faith is concerned with the understanding of that which is beyond the physical, material world, whereas politics is that which pursues the application of empirically-based policy for the betterment of society. The two address radically different truth claims. To desire a greater acceptance of different religions in democratic politics not only risks conceptual confusion, but the stability of the nation by adding a further division within democratic systems.

References:

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, Metaxas, 2009

Church of England in Parliament, last updated 2018 (Date Accessed 30th June 2018)- https://churchinparliament.org/about-the-lords-spiritual/

Church of England Weekly Attendence Falls Below 1M for First Time, Harriet Sherwood, 2016 (Date Accessed 11th August 2018)- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/12/church-of-england-attendance-falls-below-million-first-time

Divine Right of Kings, Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017 (Date Accessed 11th August 2018)- https://www.britannica.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings

Enlightenment, History.com Staff(2009) Date Accessed 15th August 2018- https://www.history.com/topics/enlightenment

France: islam and the secular state, Anne-Sylvaine Chassary, 2016 (date accessed 10th June 2018)-https://www.ft.com/content/05c420b8-75a5-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35

‘I Have A Dream’, Martin Luther King Jr (1963) Date Accessed 15th August 2018- https://www.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

King James Bible

More Americans now say they’re spiritual but not religious, Michael Lipka and Claire Gecewicz, 2017 (Date Accessed 23rd June 2018)-

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/06/more-americans-now-say-theyre-spiritual-but-not-religious/

National Secular Society, Bejamin Jones, 2016 (Date Accessed 12th August 2018)- https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/05/62-percent-say-there-is-no-place-in-uk-politics-for-religious-influence-of-any-kind

Stanford Encyclopedia: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Biletzk Anat and Mata Anat, edited 2018 (Date Accessed 22th June 2018)-

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#toc

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Aquinas’ Moral, Political and Legal Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas-moral-political

Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas, 2012 edition

The American Dream, Reality and Illusion, Stacey (2015)

The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King Jr (2001)

The City of God, Britannica Encyclopedia Editors, 2011(Date Accessed 12th July 2018)- https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-City-of-God

The Jerusalem Post, Laith Amar, 2017 (Date Accessed 15th August 2018)- https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Who-are-the-people-killed-by-Nouri-al-Maliki-and-why-482227

The Telegraph: Campbell interrupted Blair as he spoke of his faith: ‘We don’t do God’, Colin Brown, 2003 (date accessed 10th May 2018)-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1429109/Campbell-interrupted-Blair-as-he-spoke-of-his-faith-We-dont-do-God.html

Nidirect government services (Date Accessed 15th August 2018)- https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/giving-evidence-court

Barrister Not Barista

Barrister not Barista is a student-led project which aspires to connect and inform students through regular posts about current affairs and legal news. We hope to help create an increased drive and passion for politics, international relations and the law.

Tabitha Isabella Boyton

Written by

Barrister Not Barista

Barrister not Barista is a student-led project which aspires to connect and inform students through regular posts about current affairs and legal news. We hope to help create an increased drive and passion for politics, international relations and the law.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade