The Place of Religion in International Politics
The question that emerges is whether or not we can bypass
religion in world politics. My answer is no. Religion is a powerful constituent
of cultural norms and values. And because it addresses the most profound
existential issues of human life (e.g., freedom and inevitability, fear and
faith, security and insecurity, right and wrong, sacred and profane), religion
is deeply implicated in individual and social conceptions of conflict and peace
both local and global.
Religion is “a stubbornly persistent” reality and actor. Policy-making
and academia are growing more aware of religion’s presence and salience. It is
becoming more and more apparent that we need reappraisal of the role of
religion in international relations, international politics and diplomacy. I do
not mean to suggest that we need to 'religionize' international relations in the
manner of making nation-states religious as opposed to secular, for example.
No. I mean that it is time we invested a little more in religious literacy in
international affairs. This is certainly different from notions of religiosity
among domestic populations. It really does not matter if anybody belongs to or practices
any religion but it matters that a good grasp of the role of religion in international
politics informs policy in the international political market place. Religion
is menacingly present for international actors to possibly transact and successfully
so the international business (I do not mean trade!) devoid of any sense of it.
Religion is somewhat a living tradition that is historically
extended, socially embodied argument, and an argument precisely in part about
the goods which constitute the tradition. However even as we grapple with cases
where the mainstream advocates bettering the world through nonviolent means it
is good to assert that religions are not monolithic entities. This deserves
emphasis here because they are often presented as such, distorting or stalling
debate that genuinely engages questions surrounding religion’s role in violent
conflict, for instance. How is it going to be possible to counter acts of violence
such as terrorism if (1) we “baptize” them religious and (2) we are not ready
to use religion as a policy tool? If terrorism has been internationalized and christened
religious, we may need to internationalize the discourse on religion regardless
on whether or not we agree that there is nothing religious about terrorism. This
is a good challenge to “secularism” in the manner of seeing nothing, hearing
nothing, speaking nothing religious in the global political order. There is a
better understanding of secularism that does not question religion. This is
what we know and read about but the posture in which business of international
relations and diplomacy are conducted demonstrate a clear tilt towards an inclination
to reject religion and suffocate its space in world politics. At the end we lose!
If world politics is about peace, let’s gaze into the
toolkit of world religions. For instance, methinks ordaining certain types of
violence as religious makes certain religions appear to be at least tolerating
violence if not fanning it; creates perceptions of existence of violent
religions and ultimately a dichotomy between certain religions that are perceived
to be good and others perceived to be bad. How bad can it get? You cannot
possibly tell anyone that his/her religion is bad and expect them to take it
smiling! Are you?
We need to step back and recollect ourselves. Escalation of terrorism
in the world today is, in my view, an outcome of two major things: (1) misuse
of religion, and (2) bad responses based on misconceptions of terrorism as having
to do with something religious. The latter is, no doubt, causing religious
hatred and expanding the rift between the already perceived dichotomies of
good/bad religion. To overcome this challenge, we need to redefine terrorism,
for instance, make it absolutely clear both in concept and practice that terrorism
is not religious ad has nothing to do with any religion. I guess, one of the
best ways to demystify the fact that terrorism has nothing to do with religion
is through authentic religious teachings, values and actors etc. How can we do
this without anchoring policies on sound religious teachings? How can we do it by isolating world religions
and religious peoples of the world? How can we do it without religious actors
and leaders on board?
The heterogeneity of the world’s largest religions means
that at any time or in any territory, these living traditions might be a source
of violence. Yet, it also means that within each of these religions there is
room for the normative tasks of conflict resolution and peacebuilding. There
are existing and developing spiritual practices and theological and ethical
resources for hermeneutics of peace. World politics should device policies and
programs that diminish the former and enhance the latter. International
relations always navigate through dangerous often violent terrains; it has to
once again walk down the path of religions. The emerging global citizen must be
supported to take this route. It is the surest way to break religious walls and
overcome many forms of hatred and violence perceived to be religious or
inspired/driven by religion.
We may need to make religion one of the mainstays of
international politics because as I said earlier religion is menacingly present.
I am not able to conceive a world devoid of religion I the foreseeable future. Religion
is a socio-political force that affects not only individual but also local and
international processes. In new terms of terror, religion has been a constant factor
(perceived or real) in wide ranging violent acts in the world. We need religion
to correct and sanctify religion.
The Place of Religion in International Politics
Reviewed by Ibrahim Magara
on
June 07, 2017
Rating:

No comments: