Justice and Pluralism Are Fundamental Aspects of Peace - Essay Example

?Running Head: Justice and Plurality Justice and Plurality s Justice and Pluralism Justice and Pluralism are fundamental aspects in order to ensure peace and accord in the society and before delving in greater detail, the substance of this explore will first explore the meaning of these two concepts, in order to further elaborate on the subject of their fundamentality. Justice refers to the quality of being impartial and fair in one’s dealings, whereas pluralism refers to a state of the society in which racial and ethnic minorities are given ample amount of autonomous participation in state affairs. There is freedom to perform their religious activities and they can even promote their tradition and culture within the confines of the society they live in. (Baker, 1997 & Kymlicka, 1995) J.S. Furnivall was the first known person to coin the term pluralistic society and distinguish as a separate form of society. A Banker by profession, he had travelled a lot particularly to the colonial Far East where he discovered the wide range of culture and ethnic diversity that existed within that society. He described his experience and observation in the following words “in the strictest sense, a medley for they mix but do not combine”. As Furnivall tried to convey his idea and observation of a society that is a cultural melting pot, similarly this prose incorporates the same ideology and tries to observe pluralism in the light of justice and the importance of establishing a state that is beyond religion or religious beliefs. (Baker, 1997 & Young, 1979) Justice and pluralism have a high correlation and for a just system to be established in a society, social pluralism must prevail. The depth of their relationship will be further elaborated. However, the following parts of the prose will discuss and analyze the philosophy and science of social pluralism; its essence and importance in order to establish social order in the society. Pluralism is generally a philosophical term; however the term has now become synonymous with social and political science as well. During the last few decades, political and social scientists have carried out intense debates regarding the validity of a pluralistic analysis and evaluation of modern societies. (Conn, 1973) The argument presented against pluralistic interpretation of the society is vastly polemic and based on abstract. As researches continue to study the phenomenon extensively and produce copious amounts of data on the subject; however, the subject of pluralism remains in the shroud of ambiguities. Pluralism is in fact a multifaceted phenomenon and there has been numerous that, if not completely elucidate the subject but does provide sufficient amount of insight. M. G. Smith, a renowned social scientist has been known for organizing the concept that made Social pluralism a central concept in the society. He defined pluralism as the division of the society into small units on the basis of race, culture, ethnicity, language and language. These units were politically meaningful and this stratification of society was responsible determining or influencing people’s behaviour in a society. (Quong, 2004, 43-67) These units later evolve into sophisticated corporate units that were responsible for the amount of wealth a society generates and the level of discord. However, on the down side the more stratified a society became the likelihood of collective violence and discord amongst the units increased. The prime focus of studies was on the correlation between collective violence and a pluralistic society and he stated: “Having spent my life trying to clarify the conception of pluralism, I now wish to test and demonstrate its relevance for the solution of many urgent problems in the modern world. To that end I have compiled information on the demographic, economic, social and political characteristics of all sovereign nation-states, together with such detailed records as I can gather of internal collective violence in them, (i.e., coups, revolts, attempted secessions, riots, pogroms, terrorism, purges, massacres, genocides), or changes of constitutional regime, from 1932 to 1982.”(Rummel, 2002) According to Smith, his compiled information enabled him to gain insight in to the nature of the internal violence that was triggered within these societies as a result of pluralistic form of society. He further stated, “This global compilation should allow me to determine the exact contributions of the plural conditions of these states to their histories of internal violence and disorder in that period.” As now it has been established that pluralism and collective violence have a strong nexus between one another the justice system of the society is also greatly affected by the violence; as intense internal conflicts within a nation can suspend the justice system for as long as the conflict remains unresolved and furthermore pluralistic evaluation also elucidate the number of biases that exists within the society. (Rummel, 2002) There are a number of theories that seek to explain the nature of pluralism, however, the substance will include and discuss only the most fundamental ones. The establishment of a pluralistic society is dependent on the amount of ethnogenesis that takes place. In other words, it refers to the degree to which each ethnic group is willing to adjust in the new society. They retain all the major aspects of their culture and tradition; however change only slightly to fit in to the new society. Ethnogenesis largely advocates for adaptability amongst races and various ethnicities. On the other hand, the ‘melting pot theory’ developed by Robert Park that propagates the idea of assimilation amongst ethnicities and all the minorities are treated as a single unit. It results in the minorities feeling threatened as they may lose their identity. In other words, the theory suggests widespread amalgamation. (Lynch, 2001, 119-122) Critics of pluralism has shed great light on the importance of social diversity within a community; however, considering the amount of discord that can be triggered in a society as a result of it. As mentioned earlier, social pluralism can be used to refer to diversity on a variety of fronts, such as racial, ethnic, cultural and religious. In recent years, religious pluralism has gained ample amount of attention and has practically overshadowed the other aspects of pluralism in the society. Therefore, in line with the aforementioned situation many political and social scientists have stressed upon the need of establishing a secular state. That is a state established beyond religion or religious beliefs in order to accommodate the diverse beliefs and ideas regarding justice and governance in a pluralistic society. (Peterson, 1988) Secularization of states is often believed to be the stepping stone in achieving modernization and essentially moves towards separating politics and religions that is breaking them down into separate entities as opposed to one. This was believed to increase the level of equality amongst people in a society and to make the justice system even more effective. Hanne Stinson, chief executive of British Humanism Association has reiterated the need for a secular state, which she believes would be fair for every citizen in the United Kingdom. They have stressed on a neutral and non-religious approach to handling people with diverse faiths and religions. Secularization would protect the inalienable constitutional right of every citizen to freedom of religion and further stresses upon the need for equality in the social system. (Peterson, 1988 & Madero, 2011 & Stinson, 2008) Initially, the idea of equality and justice were never equated with each other until the theory of Blind justice was coined by John Rawls. Rawls’ ideology was heavily inspired by the philosophy of his predecessors such as Kant, Hobbes, Locke and Roseau. Like their idea of justice, Rawls’ theory was also based on the involvement of a social contract. However the way he defined those social contracts were different and largely focused on establishing his principles of justice. His theory starts off with the statement that “justice is the first virtue of a social institution”. The theory actually stands for the fact that the social justice system is blind and is not perverted by the status, class, race or ethnicity of the individual in question. The first principle of justice is, “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.” (Rawls, 1993) The first principle actually refers to the constitutional right of every citizen that is equality and political liberty that is freedom of speech, action and expression. The second principle consisted of clauses pertaining to an individual’s financial and social status. According to Rawls, social and economic inequalities should be perceived and set by the state in such a manner that the individual who is the least privileged is able to gain maximum amount of benefits out of the justice system and this should be established in the society in line with the savings principle. According to Rawls, the second principle of justice was, “define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens” and everyone takes equal responsibility for their actions. (Rawls, 1985, 223-251) The main of his theory was that the ideal way to establish a just and fair society is by establishing equality among its members. Equality being the most fundamental aspect of a society is not only defined by one social and financial status in the community but in today’s religion has also been the question of greatest amount of inequality in recent decades. Though, Rawls’ idea seems like a valid application in a secular state but in order demonstrate as to why it is important for nations to be secular the substance of this prose will examine exactly why is important for states to adopt a secular approach to aid the governing of the state and this aspect of the argument will be further elaborated in the light of Bahrain’s example. (Barry, 1995) Bahrain is a middle-astern nation that has experienced numerous ups and downs especially due to the constant strife between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the country. Shiites and Sunnis are two of the most dominant sects in Islamic world, and there has been major strife between these two factions as a result of the slight differences in their faiths that became even more pronounced due to variation in the perception of the history of Islam. Bahrain’s Shiite Muslims actually constitutes70% of the population that is the majority population are the followers of Shia Islam, therefore they enjoy ample amount of dominance in all the country’s affairs and the on-goings in the nation. They dominance in the region is the primary reason for the friction between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims. The Islamic New Year gold a highly sentimental position in the hearts of every Muslim regardless of the sect they belong to. However, for Shiite Muslims the occasion stretches on for an entire month and during this time in social and economic situation in Bahrain; which as mentioned earlier has a large majority of Shiite Muslims, greatly suffers as most of the Shia employees are absent from their respective jobs. The immense amount of absenteeism during this month is not allowed by the law, but many foreign and Sunni employers are greatly perturbed by this. Not only, does the economic activity slows down but for people belonging to other sects and foreigners also face a number of hardships and social activity are extremely low. Bahraini channels stop their broadcast for a month. There is absolutely no form of entertainment and those who do not even follow their religion have to endure disruption in their life due to their activities. (Peulings, 2011, 13) However, the unfair practices of the Shiite majority does not end their. Many Shia fanatics would force shopkeepers and vendors to keep their businesses closed. If nay individual in Bahrain who does not comply with or pay due regards due to their practices and religious is often subjected to harsh consequences ordained by the country’s law itself. Furthermore, the occasion involves Shiite Muslims indulging in extreme violence and self-mutilation to mourn the martyrdom of their spiritual leader. Many people are often disturbed by these extremely gory scenes of violence and as a result, it becomes really hard for non Shiite people to live in the country during that entire month. The Bahrain National Action Charter passed by the ruler in 2001 clearly grants all religious factions the freedom to practice their religion and is based on the Islamic Shari’a law. (Bahrain, National Action Charter, 2001) Though, it is an undeniable fact that the majority of Shia population is given maximum amount of religious freedom in the country. There have been countless instances of outcry on part of the Shia community, who have voiced their grievances against the government, who have complained of being social, economically and politically isolated in the country despite the fact that they form the majority in the region. They further complained of being marginalized and oppressed in other sectors of the country such as the education, whereby hardworking Shia students are not given admission into universities and other Sunni students and foreigners are readily accepted. Due to the behavior of the ruling faction there has been deep-seated resentment in the Shia community. (Bahrain, center for human rights, 2006) As it is abundantly clear that the source of the discrimination stems from the fact that Shia Muslims have their set of religious beliefs and doctrines, and due to their vast majority they are often able to overpower people belonging to other sects and other faiths. The fact that the members of the Shia community of not only are not the oppressed but also the oppressors in some cases, this instance further stresses the need for a country, whose governance is beyond the established religious norms of a particular community. In order to be fair and just, one must be able to establish the system of governance that is not influenced by any religion but the inherent sense of morality and ethics that governs the actions of every healthy individual in a civilized society. (Malcolmson, 2011) In line with the aforementioned point, governance of a country can also be based upon the doctrines laid down by the phenomenon of religious pluralism; which is the belief that all religions in the world are equally valid. However, religious plurality pays due regard to all the faith and religions in the nation but a country whose governance does not involve religious beliefs another example to demonstrate this aspect would be countries, who function in isolation with the church. The separation of the Church and State are clear examples that many countries that have become highly as a result of rapid globalization. This separation prevents favoritism in the country’s affairs and does not promote a single religion. (Gaus, 1995) It results in the citizens of the country to become more open-minded and increase acceptance of people belonging to a religiously diverse or different backgrounds. As people become more tolerant of people’s belief, there will be greater amount of accord in the society. However, the degree of toleration is also an important factor in religious matters and critics have often raised the question how much and why there should be toleration? As the matter of the prose has already discussed the importance of toleration and the answer to this particular part of question is fairly obvious. Religious toleration is required for the establishment of a liberal and a modern society. (McKinnon, 2005) It is ordained by the constitution and every individual’s inalienable to right to hold diverse views and most importantly, secularization if state has no involvement whatsoever with the religious views that a citizen of the country may hold. Therefore, toleration of other religious values and belief is not only morally understandable but is actually a necessity, a pre-requisite for the establishment of a secular state. Having reiterated the importance of toleration, the focus of the prose will now shift towards how much toleration must be given to a particular religion. Toleration for all its benefits to a society does have its limitations and the governing body of the country must know the exact degree of toleration and freedom that should be granted to all the religious factions in the society. (McKinnon, 2005 & Cohen, 2004, 115) In order to understand the limits that apply to religious freedom can be greatly understood through the example of the Bahraini Shia Muslims, who often take advantages of their numbers and dominate the minorities. According to the Bahraini National Action Charter, the breaches made by the Shiite Muslims are not even against the law because they have been given the freedom to practice their religions but there needs to be strict regulations in order to make sure that the lives of other people are not disrupted by their activities. The religious rite of Shiite Muslims during their New Year requires them to indulge in self-mutilation and torture on an open field. This aspect of their practices may a very unsightly event for those who do not understand the significance or the background of their beliefs; thus casing ample amount of observer discomfort. The government is responsible to ensure that all the needs and demands of the citizens are taken care of therefore, there needs to be a strict regulation that requires all Shiites to carry out these rites in a secluded field away from the sight of people. Similarly, the example of homosexuality has been the focal point of numerous religious and social debates, and it also ties in and epitomizes this aspect of the argument in the following way. Homosexuality is an act that is highly condemned by religious elders and particularly the Christian community is known to have adopted strict policies against. Now according to the constitutional right of an individual; he or she are allowed to freely express themselves and right to make their own choices. (Cohen, 2004, 68-95) Hence, if a man or woman is known to be involved in a homosexual relation with a consenting adult then the religious argument that makes these actions punishable are rendered null and void. Therefore, toleration seems to be the more rational solution to this problem. There is no limitation applied to this aspect because whatever the individual is doing well within the breaches of the law and does not harm anyone. Therefore, the general limits do not apply here and the observers can only practice toleration in order to maintain peace and accord in the society. According to the Apologetics index, a renowned organization that has conducted extensive amount of research into the subject of religious tolerance and freedom has stated: “The publisher of Apologetics Index supports the right to freedom of religion in thought and expression, but also the right and freedom to present relevant information about religions, movements, leaders, doctrines, and practices in order to help people make informed decisions about various belief systems and world views”(Apologetics Index, 2011) There have been copious amount of literature regarding religious freedom but even these researchers have argued about the limit that applies to religious freedom. They have even provided substantial amount of evidences from the constitution as well that states that as long as the activity of an individual start to have an adverse affect on the society in the negative, then it is beneficial to breach upon the person’s right and even use force in order to culminate the source of the discord. Forceful conversions have been a highly strong aspect of the society and seriously hamper an individual’s social and spiritual life. Wrongfully enticing an individual towards another faith and using threat or force to convert a particular is a crime and is punishable by law. Therefore, that is where the limit applies as well; whereby an individual is given the right to choose for him rather than being forced into something. Other than that, other religious rites such as the practice of “Hindu burning of a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband” called Sati is said to be a highly abhorrent practice and many young girls in rural villages are sacrificed in order to appease the gods and goddesses even to this day. Even in such a fast-paced, modernized world these practices are highly rampant in rural India, where even the century old caste system is preserved and very much in practice by illiterate and even literate Hindus. Such religious practices may seem reasonable from a religious point of view, but if all individuals isolate their views from religion these acts are not only immoral but extreme forms of crimes that are punishable by the law. The caste system breaches every citizen right to equality and the human sacrifices and sati cannot be deemed anything but first-degree murders. Therefore, this is exactly where the limitations apply and in order to apply these limits on people, it is important to gain deeper understanding of these religions. It is true that the practices of these religions seriously destroy the sanctity of human life and are responsible for adversely affecting the lives of an average citizen. The only way that the government can actually make substantial changes in the structure of these societies is by educating the populations. As it mentioned earlier in the prose that such practices are only common in impoverished regions of the country where education is scarce and ignorance is prevails. (Macedo, 1995, 468-496) Citizens and the government of such countries can take a stand against these actions by giving people good quality education. Education can help people to open their minds and enable them to see the immorality of their actions. An educated society is not only going to understand the banality of their actions and beliefs but would also pay due regard to other religions as well, thus making them more tolerant than neutral. It is important to understand the clear distinction between neutrality and religious tolerance. Religious tolerance may refer to approving the diverse views and ideas of the people about god but not accepting. It must be noted that people may not confront others about their ideas but they adopt a “live and let policy”. (Macedo, 1995, 105 & Meckled-Garcia, 2001, 293-313) On the other hand, neutrality involves staying aloof or isolated from all those factors that may trigger a confrontation. A neutral approach may be unhealthy because it involves personal grudges and resentment against a religious faction but involves the individual not voicing their resentment. Therefore, they act like passive members in the governance of a country. Though toleration and neutrality are essentially the same and target on the same objective of avoiding a confrontation, achieving political unity and mutual acceptance of idea in a politically diverse state. They may be complementary solutions to a problem but in practice toleration is believed to have a much more positive impact on a multicultural society. However, in essence it can be rightfully said that neutrality is in fact an extension of toleration. (Meckled-Garcia, 2001, 293-313) Moving back to the possible solutions to the problem of providing religious freedom but also limiting the amount of granted to the faction in order to ensure accord in the society, there a variety of solutions that can be applied. A multicultural society is a common feature of a society in a heavily globalized world. There needs to be equality and justice as proposed by John Rawls’ idea of justice. And for a pluralistic society it is important that every individual is given equal opportunities. As globalization has reached its peak, one cannot avoid mixing and mingling in a society that brings them in contact with people from all cultures and society. Therefore, as opposed to adopting oppressive policies, the government must provide freedom to practice their faith but that freedom must in a given amount of limit. (Quong, 2004, 43-67) Bibliography Apologetics Index. (2011). Religious Freedom, tolerance and intolerance. Web: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r04.html, United Kingdom. Baker, A.J. (1997). Social Pluralism: A realistic Analysis, University of Sydney, Sydney. Web: http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/anderson/contributors/price/Social-Pluralism.pdf Bahrain Center for Human rights. (2006). Religious Freedom for Shia in Bahrain :"Systematic Oppression and Marginalization". Web: http://www.bahrainrights.org/node/1442, Kingdom of Bahrain. Bahrain National Action Charter. (2001). The Sublime address of H.H the Amir Shaikh Hammad Bin Isa Al-khalifa. Web: www.pogar.org/publications/other/constitutions/bahrain-charter-01e.pdf+bahrain+charter+2001&hl=en&gl=pk&pid=bl&srcid=AD Barry, B. (1995) Justice as Impartiality, Clarendon Press, Oxford Cohen, A. J. (2004), 'What Toleraion Is', Ethics 115, 68–95 Conn, P.H. (1973). Social Pluralism and Democracy, American journal of Political Sciences, Michigan State University, Michigan. Gaus, G.F. (1995) ‘The Rational, the Reasonable and Justification’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol 3:234-258 Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship- A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Clarendon Press, Oxford, chapter 2 Lynch, M.P. (2001). Truth in context: An essay on pluralism and objectivity, The Mit Press, Cambridge: 119-122 Madero, M.S. (2011). Religious Freedom and the conscientious objection and the secular state, Association of Constitutional Law, Athens. web: www.enelsyn.gr/papers/w12/Paper%2520by%2520Prof%2520Dora%2520Maria%2520Sierra%2520Madero.pdf+mAria+Sierra+madero&hl=en&gl=pk&pid=bl&srci Macedo, S. (1995), ‘Liberal Civic Education and Religious Fundamentalism’, Ethics, Oxford: 105(3), 468-496 Malcolmson, S. (2011). Bahrain: the widening gulf. The 6th Floor, The New York Times. Web: http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/bahrain-the-widening-gulf/ Meckled-Garcia, S. (2001), 'Toleration and Neutrality: Incompatible Ideals?', Res Publica, Sydney 7(3), 293-313 McKinnon (2005) Toleration: A critical Introduction, Routledge, London Peterson, L.R. (1988). Orthodoxy, Religious Discordance and Alienation, Journal for scientific study of religion, Blackwell Publishing, New Jersey. Peilings, J (2011), Fearing a Shiite Octopus: Sunni Shia relationships and implications for Belgium and Europe. Egmont, Royal Institute of International relations, Brussels: 13 Quong, J. (2004) ‘Disputed Practices and Reasonable Pluralism.’ Res Publica: A Journal of Legal and Social Philosophy, Sydney: vol. 10, 43-67 Rawls, J. (1993) Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, New York Rawls, J. (1985) ‘Justice as Fairness: Political-Not Metaphysical’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol.14: 223-251 Raz, Joseph (1986), The Morality of Freedom, Clarendon Press, Oxford Rummel, R.J. (2002). Diversity and violence. University of Hawaii, Hawaii. Web: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SMITH.ART.HTM Stinson, H. (2008). A secular state would be fairer for everyone – and we need it sooner, not later. British Humanist Association (BHA), United Kingdom. Web: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/201 Young, C. (1979). The Politics of cultural pluralism, University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin. Read More