Key hallenges for Western Governments - Dissertation Example

  Key Сhallenges for Western Governments Introduction Religious diversity has posed a nagging problem for governments, scholars, politicians, analysts, and the wider public. Debate about various religion oriented issues and policies such as application of Sharia law, use of public coffers to finance religious schools, donning of religious symbols like the hi jab or the kirpan in schools and public places, and religion endorsed polygamy are some of the issues causing tension in western nations. The vastly evolving demographics in countries like USA, Canada, France, Australia, Norway and others underscore the need for urgency on these issues. Religious diversity refers to the differences in sets of shared values, standard codes, feelings, and organization between different religious entities relative to the sacredness and significance implicated in notions of majorities, pluralities and minorities in the collectives that identify themselves by a religion or religious community. This essay seeks to explore the concept of religious diversity as deployed or criticized and debated in public and private context in research, legal, political settings, and policy making, and how best to attend to challenges and opportunities presented by varied meanings attributed to religious diversity in a format that promotes a just, accommodating and peaceful society (Banchoff 2007). The main challenge is on how to incorporate faith and religion into the public sphere and align it with cultural discourse. There is mounting pressure to include religion along with ethnicity and race in multiculturalism policy. Policy reform ought to facilitate and promote accommodation and tolerance among diverse religions, tailoring government policies and agendas to tackle the needs of a religiously diverse society, and adopting a broad societal discourse in order to shape public debate over the role of religion and religious diversity in society. The main shifts in religion have been characterized by the resurgence in religiosity among Islamic, evangelical Christian communities, and immigration of people with different religious traditions (Banchoff 2007). Despite the decrease in church attendances, there are overwhelming majority of citizens in western countries who identify with Christianity. Since the 9/11 bombing of the twin towers in the USA, several western governments have incorporated religious diversity in public policy. Religious diversity has been the subject of public policy and research focus in several western countries in recent years. In 2003, France, commissioned the Stasi Report, which inspired the banning of religious symbols in public schools, the 2004 report on Cooperation between Government and Faith Communities in the UK, and Cultural Diversity and Safeguarding Australia report with all aiming to look at how government policy and citizens can adjust to evolving religious reality (Monsma and Soper 2009). Managing religious diversity through public policy Differences, tensions or conflicts in society can be resolved privately between individuals or through spokesmen of individual communities negotiating with private organizations. Communities can also voluntarily engage in actions that accommodate particular needs of others like through ecumenical outreach to other communities. Some religious organizations use self-segregation as a means of avoiding conflict. However, most citizens of western nations are accommodating religious diversity viewing it as a source of strength to the society. Co existence between religious groups creates a room for problem resolution of all members in the effort to resolve their differences privately through mutual understanding (Kunz 2009, Para 14). There is a misconception that Muslims in the west are not committed to broader societal integration despite strong interest and commitment among Muslims. This is testimony to a more profound challenge of evident unease felt by citizens on whether and how to accommodate fellow citizens of minority religious backgrounds. In light with lack of information, awareness, and the natural tendency of adherents of different religions to congregate with fellow adherents, there is tension and suspicion towards the faithful of minority religions in the west. Therefore, public education and facilitation of dialogue across the religious spectrum may be invaluable as a policy prescription to reduce the scope of ignorance and misapprehension (Cesari 2006). There might be sporadic episodes of conflict where effective private efforts at accommodation fail to prevent the emergence of tension and mistrust, and might require public mediation and facilitation efforts especially for low-key conflicts. If the fore mentioned efforts fail, then adjudication may be necessary in the form of government legislation or judicial intervention. The hyper competitive democratic space afforded to citizens of western countries permits governments, political parties and other entities to aggressively seek to address the needs of various religious groups and involve them in the decision-making process. The policies formulated, and programs initiated tend to be acceptable as governments adapt policies to accommodate increasing religious diversity. Some researchers and experts have urged governments to deviate from the largely ad hoc type of policies and adopt more comprehensive frameworks while others feel that the broad constitutional framework permits flexible and customized policy adaptations (Cesari 2006). Policies designed to address religious groups, like consultations among religious and community stake holders, normally raise only a few objections from the public. Adaptations that offer some groups exemptions from legislative regulation tend to be more controversial. For example, attempts to allow recourse to sharia law in Canada raised heated debate in the Canadian public sphere. The most controversial, though sometimes inconspicuous a glance, are adaptations seen to undermine historical national symbols, like the Quebec national assembly offended scores of the public with the decision to remove the crucifix from its chambers. Citizens in Ontario opposed the proposal to facilitate access to public funds by faith based schools, in spite of the existing confessional constitutional rights to education (Banchoff 2007). Notwithstanding opposition and technical hitches, there is a need for a coherent, comprehensive discourse, grounded in principles, describing and guiding overall approach to designing policy adaptations. The motive should be to accommodate, respect and not privilege religious diversity in public policy and political debate. Even for faith-neutral countries, it is sometimes necessary to have trade-offs between the state and religion especially in the case of traditional practices that might conflict with core values of the broader society (Banchoff 2007). A common phenomenon among immigrant populations is to congregate in concentrated regions in order to benefit from established social networks and use the base to extend the network in to the broader society. In such cases, government initiatives should focus on integration of such groups into mainstream society as there is evidence of segregation impeding economic development of such groups (Banchoff 2007). Religion human rights and democracy: the case of Islam The quest for human rights can only be fulfilled because of internal struggles or internalized desires emanating from the need to participate in national affairs and not external struggles. Most Muslims interpret Islam as a religion that permits and requires freedom of speech, democracy, participation and tolerance. By letting religious groups to govern certain issues of their members, some countries like Israel, India and Malaysia have managed to create a balance between religious rights and other human rights while allowing Muslims to interpret the Qur’an in their daily lives. In this case, religious laws govern only spheres of family and private law such as marriage, separation and inheritance while prioritizing religious privacy and autonomy (Fukuyama et al 2010). The success and acceptance of these courts has been mixed with some doubting their authenticity, efficiency and integrity. This also undermines the compatibility of Islam with international concepts of human rights. It seems that Islam unlike the West prioritizes group rights over individual rights. Maybe, the best way to incorporate Islam in to democracy is to debate and scrutinize it both inside and outside religion (Fukuyama et al 2010). Individual rights and group rights are inextricable in the context that, in exercising individual rights one may not impinge on the rights of others. Thus, Islamic ideology is not alien as rights must always be exercised with the wider society in mind. Government is build upon the prevailing morals which direct constitutionalism and stability, public morality informs positive law and as such, conflict between law and morals can be resolved in a democratic system by adjusting the law in line with prevailing morals. Islamic human rights are founded on lines of tradition and religious practices and do not always correspond to western notions of human rights. Thus, western democratic governments that may want to integrate Islamic ideals in to democratic systems might struggle with conflicting ideologies. It is suggested that an effective working balance can be achieved by examining and applying prevailing and universally accepted societal morals (Mahoney 2006). Islam endorses the application of justice in its noblest form by following a code of social conduct with emphasis on showing compassion and concern for all people. In case of conflict with personal interests public good and welfare take precedence. In Islam, justice applies whether an act corresponds or contradicts tenets of Islam. God is perceived to have perfect knowledge and wisdom and his divine revelation is superior to fallible human being. Contrary to some western perceptions, Islam shares several ideals with western notion of justice, and human dignity. Where the west seems to prevail, in protecting individual rights, it is due to stability and consistency of constitutional regimes. Any form of Muslim democracy must encourage citizens to respect rights of others as well as cherish their own (Mahoney 2006). Cause for optimism  Some Muslim scholars have proposed that sharia laws can be altered through ijtih d, or reasoning to update them to current democratic principles. The Koran provides no ground for compulsion holding that God will judge between believers and non-believers on the final day of judgment. This is in line with democratic principles of self-determination. During periods of Islamic conquest, Muslims set up a legal system called dhimmi as recourse for non-Muslims who were allowed to co-exist with Muslims while maintaining political subordination and tributary status (Monsma and Soper 2009). In modern times, Islam has tried to harmonize co-existence with non- Muslims by developing a mutual relationship between the Muslim state and dhimmi communities drawing values from both Islamic law and local traditions. Sharia actually favors inclusion of non-Muslims in national cohesion by formulating guidelines to reinforce ties between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam is founded on human equity and in most aspects; a dhimmi’s legal status matches that of a Muslim. The legal and constitutional privileges of citizens of an Islamic nation are dependent on the nation’s interpretation of sharia laws. Though, western notions of equality and rights protection are foreign to Islam; Muslim citizens can still enjoy equality by the law and cultural norms (Stepan 2000). Liberal Muslims and scholars argue that differentiation based on faith only applies to individuals before god and has no basis for civil inequalities. Any passage promoting such differentiation is of suspect authenticity and is inconsistent with many qur’anic verses calling for tolerance. They assert that the quran permits shura, or community consultations regardless of gender or religious affiliation. Alternatively, minimal Islamic practice can change to accommodate prevailing morals and societal mores even if doctrine cannot change. Islam has historically evolved its practices in line with changing times; from capital punishment for non-believers in ancient times, to peaceful co-existence with Hindus in the east to secular nationalism in the 1800s, Islam has demonstrated commendable capacity for change. This increasing tolerance implies that Muslims will in the future find room for international standards of fundamental human rights and equal protection within structures of Islam (Stepan 2000). Apostasy defined as denouncing Islam and/or converting to another religion, though previously interpreted as a betrayal of Islam and the duty to protect other Muslims is now considered a crime only where the state security is jeopardized as such it adopts the western equivalent of treason. Thus, religious freedom under the Qur'an is equal to the western values (Cesari 2006). Indian religious laws govern personal affairs while the Indian constitution guarantees equity, freedom of conscience and faith and freedom of religious practice. Conversion to another religion is allowed with the convert subject to new religious laws. This practice could be viewed as unethical, but where Koranic principles are followed, the religious courts would determine the practice to be a violation of Islamic principles. For in Islam, a man can only marry a another wife as long as he is in a position to treat both wives equally, by applying tenets if Islam, such a man is disqualified on grounds that he has no desire to love and respect his first wife (Cesari 2006). Religion human rights and democracy; the case of other religions  Where Islam is not prominent Muslim religious groups are granted autonomy to govern personal affairs of members, Religious coercion infringing on individual rights is common. For example, in Israel, religious tribunals adjudicate personal matters of adherents and there are no secular courts addressing personal matters. Non-believers have no access to a personal matter arbitration services. Even for those with access to such services inequities are bound to arise, this is the case where non-orthodox Jews and non-religious Jews are resent the authority of Jewish rabbinical courts which are controlled by the orthodox Jewish community, the latter can be termed as religious coercion (Baylis, Smith and Owens). Jewish religious courts have jurisdiction to pass judgment on all ethnic Jews irrespective of creed. Due to the limited opportunity for legal services on matters of family law, individuals must endure the religious system to establish a family unit. Even when personal matters are mentioned in civil courts, the courts apply religious law in adjudication. The Israel government provides avenues for redress by providing right of appeal in or outside religious courts. Despite this provision, religious courts are controlled and influenced by the orthodox Jewish population, essentially controlling the course of justice and coercing individuals to adhere to doctrines they don’t espouse. By so doing, they deliberately infringe on the rights of minorities ostensibly to protect the morals of the state and religious character of the nation. Clearly, this policy violates the democratic rights and fundamental rights of non-conforming Jews and minorities(Baylis, Smith and Owens). Even where religious groups do not exert undue political coercion and influence, religiously-dominated nations will still experience social coercion. For instance, a case in India where a court awarded alimony to a divorced woman, the husband appealed claiming that he had fulfilled his obligations under Muslim Personal Law, but the supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision. However the ruling party introduced legislation that supported the husband’s case overturning the Supreme Court’s decision. Thus despite the Supreme Court’s attempt to protect individual rights, cultural and religious norms of the majority prevailed (Monsma and Soper 2009). Conclusion Religious tenets are not necessarily incompatible with laws protecting individual and group rights, rather, democratic protection of human rights can be achieved by encouraging religious adherents of diverse faiths to adhere to their own principles. Society must be governed by sets of laws reflecting the inherent morality in it and not by external and foreign principles imposed on it that do not necessarily reflect popular consensus. Any reform can only be successful if religious communities are allowed to adhere to their faith and retain their core ideals. Social reform is achieved through a gradual transformation process as evidenced by the evolution of Islam. Bibliography: Banchoff, T., 2007. Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. 2007. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cesari, J. 2006. European Muslims and the secular state. Aldershot [u.a.]: Ashgate. Fukuyama, F. et al. 2010. Democracy’s past and Future. Journal of Democracy 21 (1): 1-13. Mahoney, J. 2006.The Challenge of Human Rights: Origin, Development and Significance. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Pub. Monsma, S. and Soper, J., 2009. The challenge of pluralism: church and state in five democracies. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Stepan, A., 2000. Religion, Democracy, and the "Twin Tolerations". Journal of Democracy, 11(4): 37- 57. Kunz, J., 2009. Religious Diversity in a Multicultural Canada: Quo Vadis? Accessed on 15th Dec 2012 from: http://www.horizons.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=2009-0008_04 Read More