Peace as a Matrix of Convergence between Religion and Politics

by Eugène Goussikindey

SJ Woodstock-Berkley Visiting Jesuits
Georgetown University
February 28, 2006

A- Introduction
Religion and Politics are once again in the headlines. Since 9/11, the media have carved them with vivid contrasting images both in our minds and in our hearts. Politicians have since been using these images in subtle arguments. Scholars, who once thought that religion was in decline with the growth of a secular world, are suddenly faced with the challenge of understanding and explaining its resurgence. Is it still viable to hold that the “dead man (is just) walking”� to his final rest? Recent presidential election in the US and the hearing that led to the confirmation of Judge Alito seem to suggest that religion and politics are not just parallel institutions in peaceful coexistence in the United States of America. The least we can say is that legal and moral issues can be affected by a faith vision; they are not just indifferent to each other. If the death knell of religion cannot yet be rung in the US, the religions overtones of the recent outburst of violence in Paris and other cities of France which culminated in a state of emergency, as well as the London bombing by youth related to Islamic groups in Britain, suggest once more that we should be prudent in our judgment about the relationship between religion and politics in contemporary world.

In a significant study entitled: Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart assume the basic idea of secularization as a progressive decline of religion in society, and set out to “demonstrate”� that it is a quantifiable, almost irreversible phenomenon with variation around the world. These variations are precisely what their theory intends to explain. They posit that the level of “human security and vulnerability”� in a given society combined with the type of “distinctive worldviews that were originally linked with religious traditions (that) shaped the cultures of each nation in an enduring fashion”� determine the particular role of religion in a particular nation. For these authors, it seems, the world would gain more if secularization expands as it expands with economic and human development and greater existential security. Framed differently, the triumph of politics that goes with secularization and the diminution of the role of religion are beneficial to the world.

But, beside the secularization approach, there are authors like Ted G. Jelen and Clyde Wilcox who offer a different vision on the complex interaction between politics and religion. In Religion and Politics in Comparative Perspective, they assert that “clearly religion has not withered away, but remains an increasingly vital force in society and politics across the globe.”� They also noted, and it is a point mentioned by Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, that “the role of religion in political life, the conflicts between religious groups, and the issue of church and state all differ among countries.”� The continuous vitality of religion in society and the variation of its role from nation to nation offer the basic insight for my presentation. In this paper I would like to argue that religion and politics, if properly understood in their social function, would gain mutually in engaging each other in a meaningful dialogue. If they constructively collaborate especially with regard to the issue of peace, both religion and politics would converge. It is in this sense that we can talk about peace as a unique matrix of convergence.

B- Defining Religion and Politics
The way we define or conceive of religion determines the way we understand its relation to society and politics. Today, there is no one definition of religion that is acceptable to all or that could be the best possible account of what religion is, or does, or aims at. Religion can be approached from a sociological perspective or an anthropological perspective. It can also be understood from a theological perspective or a philosophical perspective. These two disciplines are less and less called upon in contemporary academic circles because they seem not to involve “empirical investigation,”� raising the question of “what is and what is not appropriate data for study.”� The sociological perspective which dominates the present-day academic environment tends to approach religion from sets of “measurable”� criteria such as “religious values and belief,”� “participation in religious practices”� (attendance to worship, prayer), “participation in political and social engagement”� (mobilization in support of parties, of issues, of policy), etc. where one can rely on data collected through “poll”� and “interview.”� The anthropological perspective, usually more sensitive to cultural dimension, tends to understand religion from its relation to “meaning.”� Clifford Geertz’s classical definition says: “Religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in people by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”� Since Emmanuel Kant, religion has been understood in correlation with knowledge. The content of religion starting with its fundamental reference, i.e. God, is beyond the bounds of sense and as such fall shorts of objective knowledge. Once faith is set in tension with knowledge, the question of Truth and the Absolute takes the central stage whenever philosophers come to grips with religion. In theological perspective, religion is understood from the point of view of “revelation.”� Here, the basic idea is that, in spite of its worldly determinations, religion is not a human product or construct, but an expression willed by God. With four academic disciplines, we have four different perspectives which can hardly be reconciled.

Peace being our main concern, I would like to propose an understanding of religion and politics that sets the stage or clears the horizon for the convergence of politics and religion. Religion, I contend, is a public institutional expression and promotion of the spiritual dimension of a person as member of a community. This definition calls some comments:

1. The idea of a public institutional expression intends to dispel any reduction of religion to an occult activity, in the sense of secretive. Even where there is initiation, there is always a public manifestation. The institutional expression reinforces this open dimension of religion. Religion is not an anonymous business. Someone somewhere should account for it.

2. Religion is not a private business even if it involves the spiritual dimension of the person. This is precisely why the person is viewed as “member of a community”�. Individuals do not develop their spiritual dimension from nothing. It is always received like a language; we receive it before we transform it according to our unique ability or talent. With all the individual or personal variations, religion belongs to a community in its broad public expression.

3. The institutional expression is often at the origin of differences in religion. By institutional expression, we understand the “extra demands”� put on “individual”� and “community”� for their “fulfillment”�. These extra demands can be “rituals”� performed by an authoritative figure; it can also be a set of “exercises”� done individually or collectively, under the guidance of some qualified representatives or not. Some ethical requirements may be part of such demands. They constitute the ideals and values of the community from and within which individuals find meaning for their life. So, religion has a significant grip on individuals and community within a larger society.

This perspective can account for Christianity as well as Islam, Buddhism as well as African Religions, Judaism as well as Hinduism etc.

Politics, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it, is “the science and art of government; the science dealing with the form, organization, and administration of a state or part of one, and with the regulation of its relations with other states.”� For us, with the lens of peace and in relation to the scope of our reflection, politics is more fundamentally (about) a structured organization of a geographical space (milieu) into a social space (milieu) according to laws and responsibility in view of the common good (welfare) of all members of that society. This understanding of politics calls for some comments:

1. The relation between the geographical space and the social space is necessary to the understanding of politics in its correlation to peace. The conversion or transformation of the geographical space into a social space implies that in politics, one is not dealing with a “no man’s land”�. This means that politics is foremost about people and their relationship within a determinate environment. State or Nation building thus involves securing a “physical”� context and transforming this context into a coherent human living space.

2. The idea of structured organization intends to emphasize that there are levels of organization which modern conception would articulate in the separation of powers: legislative, judicial, executive, etc. A structured organization also means that there is an internal cohesion in the organization. Finally, the idea of structured organization assumes the possibility of many ways of organizing the geographical space into a social space. This may account for various types of organization such as “kingdom,”� “parliamentary democracy,”� “republican democracy”� are possible as particular political visions structuring the organization of the social space. It is at this level that party politics plays.

3. The laws and responsibility imply that politics is not exempt of “duty.”� The fundamental duty is toward the welfare of all. The laws intend to promote and safeguard the common good of all members without discrimination. Each one is responsible as a member of the society while some are entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the welfare of all.

As one can already perceive, the understanding of religion and politics that we put forward deliberately bring to light a common concern of religion and politics, i.e. the people as groups or individuals, their “welfare”� or “well-being”� and their “fulfillment.”� This is so because peace has to do with people, whether understood as groups or individuals. When we talk about “peace as the matrix of convergence of religion and politics”� it can be translated into “people as the matrix of convergence of religion and politics.”� In the old “medieval”� philosophical vision, it is said that the “transcendental”� (Being, the One, the Truth, the Good) were convertible. Analogically, we can say that Peace and People are convertible as far as one is concerned with religion and politics. Why?

C- Peace and Religion
I would like to state with confidence that there is no religion that is “per se”� against “peace.”� If religion is truly a public institutional expression and promotion of the spiritual dimension of a person as member of a community as we said, then it is fundamentally rooted in peace. Yet, the media have brought to our attention many cases of violent incidents in the name of religion. From Kaduna (Nigeria) to Tokyo (Japan), from Bali to Belfast (Northern Ireland), from London (United Kingdom) to Oklahoma City (United States of America), we have seen scenes of violence with religious references. Mark Juergensmeyer’s book on the “global rise of religious violence”� has this evocative title: Terror in the Mind of God. The quote from Exodus 23:27 (I will send my terror before you, and will throw into confusion all the people”¦) as a front page epigraph seems to indicate that God himself is the author of the violence or, at least, can be referred to by his zealots to justify religious violence. From all major “world religions”� cases of ferocious violence perpetrated in the in God’s name can be cited:

• Christians:
  * The bombing federal building at Oklahoma City (1995)
  * Abortion clinic bombing in Alabama and Georgia (1997)
  * The IRA in Northern Ireland
  * The war in Bosnia and Kosovo

• Hindu:
  * Destruction of the Babur’s Mosque (1992)

• Buddhist:
  * Nerve gas in the subway of Tokyo (Japan)

• Islam:
  * Subways bombing in Paris and London, Madrid’s train station
  * 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center
  * Destruction of the Danish embassy in Syria and Lebanon
  * Suicide bombing by Hamas and Al-Qaida members

• Jews:
  * Extremists in Israel and selective killing by the army using missiles
  * Dr. Baruch Goldstein, killed over 30 Muslims at the Tomb of the Patriach (1994)

    
The very idea of “terrorist”� today implicitly carries a religious connotation to the unacceptable violence that destroyed lives of often innocent people. Would the violence being associated with religion be rooted “at the deepest levels of religious imagination”� as Mark Juergensmeyer tends to suggest? Can one fairly argue that “religion has provided the motivation, the justification, the organization, and the world view”� that sustain or render possible these violent acts? If “religion is not innocent”� according to Juergensmeyer, the fact that “it does not ordinarily lead to violence”� needs to be deepened. Moreover, if the “community”� that entertains a “culture of violence”� often transformed the “descent man”� into a perpetrator of violent acts, then the role of religion in relation to the community needs also further reflection.

From a historical perspective, it seems that most religions in the world, if not all, entertain a strong “desire”� for peace. If violence characterizes the original relation between human beings, the need to build a human community has often called upon religion to manage violence. This line of idea has been explored and propounded by René Girard in his Violence and the Sacred (Engl. Transl., Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1977). Religion, so to speak, channels human “natural”� tendencies to violence through rituals and sacrifices. “The common denominator, says Girard, is internal violence — all the dissensions, rivalries, jalousies, and quarrels within the community that sacrifices are designed to suppress. The purpose of the sacrifice is to restore harmony to the community, to reinforce the social fabric.”� It often posits an original harmony that was disrupted through human misbehavior and suggests ways of living a fulfilled life in the human community and after death. Many religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and African Religions cultivate the idea of a peaceful, harmonious and glorious life after death with the condition that members have to live a morally upright existence in order to partake in the life to come. At least, within the same community violence is not accepted. In fact, most religions have mechanisms to resolve conflicts and rites to reconcile people.

Like two sides of the same coin, conflict and peace are at the origin of religion. Some like Rene Girard would argue that religion emerged to resolve human violence and conflict; I would suggest that religion emerged with peace. Where there was no religion to handle or regulate human violence, there was no human community, or peace failed. From the study of human culture, religion appears as an integral component that offers foundation and validation to the values that shape a human community. In ancient civilizations (Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Traditional African) religion was an integral part of culture. Often, religion is the foundation of the society. “Political”� rulers and “religious”� authorities were intertwined or complemented each other to safeguard social order and peace.

It is not without importance that, in Christianity, the Risen Lord offers “peace”� to his disciples. The new community is born in this offer because “peace”� established them in a new fraternity with a new purpose. The violent experience of the Passion and the death that followed disintegrated the pre-paschal (pre-resurrection) community. So, the new beginning is in the gift of peace. Peace is indeed a constant offer in most religions: in Judaism, “shalom”� is a gift of God; in Islam, the daily greeting includes the offer of peace: As-salamu halaikum. In African religions, peace is a fundamental wish (Benin: Fifa).

I would not agree with Mark Juergensmeyer that “religion is not innocent.”� When religion is used and abused for purposes that are normally alien to it core vision, then we are called to question the misinterpretations made of religion and those responsible for such interpretations. Some years ago, as a young student in theology, I came face to face with the question of religion and violence, during a course on revelation. As a response to the challenge, I wrote an article entitled “La violence du révélé”� (the Violence of Revelation). I thought that inclusive to the idea of revelation was an exclusive principle that can lead to intolerance or to the reduction of others, precisely because of the claim of having a revelation from God himself.  Fifteen years later, it seems to me that all religions, because of their self-definition, which is fundamentally destined to their own community, should not extend this definition to others indiscriminately. The encounter with other people with other religions compels one’s self-definition to respect other people’s self-definition. As far as everyone agrees that there should be a distinction between the “insiders”� and people from “outside,”� effort at dialogue will avert open violence. In a context of pluralism of religion or multiculturalism, competing claims should be tempered by dialogue and, particularly, dialogue with politics. Indeed, it is in the interest of politics to have all the different components of the society working together.

After centuries of bias, mutual suspicions and open confrontation (secular and/or sacred) in the West, religion is back on the stage through spectacular events with highly political implications: suicide bombings, mass demonstrations with violent outcome, radical moral positions (abortion, death penalty, gay-lesbian issues, social justice, etc). The destructiveness of various attacks on Western interests in Bali, Nairobi, Madrid, London from Islamic militants has been amplified by the media and a general negative connotation is now attached to religion in relation to politics. This misrepresentation needs to be corrected and religion should be seen as bearing values that can be imparted to each follower for individuals.

D- Peace and Politics
Just as religion has an ambivalent relation to peace and violence, so does politics. The emergence of a political community, i.e. the transformation of a geographical space into a social space often occurred through subjugation of people or groups of people. Empires often come about through conquests. To maintain themselves, they have to be ready to go to war: the ancient saying fits in here: si vis pacem para bellum. This is obviously a conqueror vision of peace. Independence, freedom often come through confrontation, sometimes violent confrontation.

Politics actually starts with “pacification”�. The term pacification encompasses the idea of “peace”� but it remains shrouded in ambiguity. It might involve military coercion to force a group of people to surrender; it could just be a process of securing a general agreement from different groups which may not be at war but are called to enter a new treaty of collaboration. Politics is in our view a deliberate effort to bring together people of different family, cultural or religious affiliations. It is about building a community where the primal interest is the welfare of all its members. To achieve this, modern societies have an education, health and social safety net for the vulnerable. Laws have been enacted to foster a greater participation of all in the process of collective decision. Often, the majority’s voice will make the day and dissenting voices have to look at alternative ways to voice their concern.

The growing rationalization of the organization of the social space has led to some theoretical postulation as to the role religion will play in the politics of modern society. Without getting into the historical background, it suffices to note with Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, that

“The seminal social thinkers of the nineteenth century — Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud — all believed that religion would gradually fade in importance and cease to be significant with the advent of industrial society. They were far from alone; ever since the Enlightenment, leading figures in philosophy, anthropology, and psychology have postulated that theological superstitions, symbolic liturgical rituals, and sacred practices are the product of the past that will be outgrown in the social sciences during most of the twentieth century; indeed it has been regarded as the master model of sociological inquiry, where secularization was ranked with bureaucratization, rationalization, and urbanization as the key historical revolutions transforming medieval agrarian societies into modern industrial nations.”�

This presupposition has not favored a positive understanding of the contribution of religion in building a community. In fact, this perception suggests that politics and religion are rivals and one should win over the other at the end. Moreover, this understanding implicitly posits that the goal of religion can be achieved by politics. The paradox is that, with this vision, religion and politics seem to be moving toward the same goal, i.e. the promotion of a fulfilled human community. If this is indeed so, there should rather be a collaboration, each bringing its distinct contribution to the wellbeing of the people they serve. The deliberate project of some contemporary political visions to build a secular society with a marginal or no role at all to religion is itself at the origin of the tension between religion and politics today.

For politics to be effective in building a human society where people experience a fulfilled existence, it should avoid any deliberate coercion on the spiritual dimension of people. Theoretically, “communism”� has devised a society where structurally one does away with the so-called “theological superstitions, symbolic liturgical rituals, and sacred practices.”� The human spirit resists up to the collapse of the system. In the “capitalist”� environment, religion was quietly sidetracked for the material and technological improvement of human life. In most industrial or post-industrial (?) nations, there is a significant improvement in the quality of material life of people in general (the community) but, the “individual”� and “personal”� satisfaction and fulfillment is left out. Now, there are signs everywhere that the neglected dimension is a critical dimension of people’s humanity. Instead of battling to have the “monopole”� on the totality of human existence, including providing meaning to their existence, politics would gain by allowing other specialized instances like religion to take charge of this dimension. Ancient societies were wise enough to set up mechanism to integrate and even control religion in their political organization. The end result of the deliberate enterprise to exclude religion from modern organization of human society is a fiasco with the resurgence of radical religious expressions. Luckily, a recent study of the World Bank, Mind, Heart and Soul in the Fight against Poverty , emphasizes the need for uniting efforts and for collaboration between religious organizations and political institutions in the fight against poverty. This should not be an exclusive option for developing countries. What is important is to recognize that there are common points between religion and politics and, that these common points call for joint collaborative efforts.

E- Peace as a Matrix of Convergence
The idea of a “matrix”� is an important part of this reflection. A matrix is a complex idea which is used in various fields from biology to electronics including mathematics and logic. As a concept, it indicates “a place or medium in which something is originated, produced, or developed; the environment in which a particular activity or process begins; a point of origin and growth.”� It suggests altogether a “supporting structure”� and “enclosing structure”�, a structure that encompasses diversity by interconnecting many structures.

Peace functions as a matrix where politics and religions find their roots. Politics and religion are basically dealing with human society. Long before classical political reflections such as Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, etc., the “Homeric tradition”� and the “sophists”� in Greece had raised issues and offered careful thought on the origin of human society, on government, on the origin of law and the nature of justice, on the distribution of wealth and the distribution of power in human community. It appears from their reflection that a human society requires some “commonalities”� that keep the community together: some common laws, statutes or constitutions, a cultural tie or a religious tie, some common projects or goals such as trade or military operation for security reasons. Peace, one can say, is at the foundation of human society. The laws, the cultural and religious ties, as well as the common goals or projects, bind the community together and so prevent the clash, unrest, disorder, violent confrontation. If politics is really about human society or, more precisely about cohesion and unity of purpose of the human society, then peace is an integral part of its foundation. Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan can be read as an attempt to solve the crucial problem of “the unity of the state”� in the face of opposing forces: the Church, the State, the Crown, the Parliament, the limit of “political power”� and freedom to disagree on what is “just”� or “unjust.”�

Just as is politics, religion is about human society. Perhaps, more specifically, it is about human fulfillment. Here, the human being is not isolated from the community because religion always has a social dimension. The assertions that religion is about human society or human fulfillment do not contradict its relation to that which transcends the human being, i.e., God. Religion normally offers ideals and values that give purpose to concrete life by calling upon God. It mobilizes the spiritual energy of people and community toward actions that are morally praiseworthy. Most religions invite their adherents to look beyond themselves to build a fellowship that enhances the community. To achieve this, religion needs peace. No wonder why the peace is a core value in every religion. Unfortunately, in many minds today, religion appears as the breeding ground for acts of terror and violence and radical or extremist views on issues like abortion, gay and lesbian rights, etc. Simplistic assertions like “global rise of religious terrorism”� or “clash of civilization”� easily portrayed religion as divisive, violent or confrontational, fuelling the old polarity between the “secular”� and the “sacred,”� “politics”� and “religion.”� Yet, religion and politics overlap because they share many values; both intend to bind people together and to work for the well-being of human community. These goals require common responsibility from religion and politics; these goals call for peace.

In Africa, the quest for peace is such that one cannot afford a confrontational relationship between religion and politics. Without peace there is no development. The disheartening example of Côte d’Ivoire is a blunt reminder that development depends on a peaceful environment, i.e., an environment where communities are not at odds with each other. The war in Côte d’Ivoire, as in many other African countries, transforms the linguistic, ethnic and religious differences into deadly opposition. It destroys the political cohesion and halts the economic development, with a ripple effect on the neighboring states and the regional organizations. For a continent at the margin of the global world, there is much to be gained for the people if religion and politics work in partnership for peace.

Peace or the quest for peace forces religion and politics to collaborate for their own benefit which is the benefit of the community they intend to serve. In the past, politics would deal with the material well-being of the community while religion would care for the spiritual well-being. Perhaps, with the global world becoming more and more a complex reality, the sharp distinction needs to be reviewed. The good news has come from an unexpected corner, the World Bank, and it deserves to be quoted extensive as a concluding note.

“In the development world, awareness that multifaceted and complex processes underlie economic and social change has risen markedly. What at one time seemed a distinct and relatively simple process of linear, predictable, and manageable progress is now more clearly seen as a complex kaleidoscope of social change that takes different forms in different parts of the world. Each development challenge — whether ensuring stability in the financial sector, boosting food crop production, or reducing infant mortality — depends critically on human motivations and institutions, often at the grassroots level. Likewise, the missions and lives of religious leaders, as shepherds of a ‘flock,’ might once have seemed relatively straightforward, and geared more toward spiritual well-being. More recently, however, the need to foster community and temporal well-being is now also widely accepted as falling within the purview of religious leaders and organizations, and sometimes challenges traditional beliefs and previously accepted notions of social change.
“The wall that appears to divide the realm of the faith community from the secular and pragmatic world of economics crumbles, faced with the gamut of issues that fall under the heading of social justice. ‘Globalization’ has also brought, among countless other changes and challenges, a realization of the profoundly complex links among phenomena often viewed as distinct. The barriers that appeared to separate nations — rich and poor — now seem mere chimeras, so porous that wise observers everywhere highlight the bonds that link humanity.”�

In the name of peace and for its sake, the time may have come to courageously “raze the bastion”� that separates religion and politics. This does not mean that they have to loose their identities. In Religion et Politique dans la pensée moderne, Maurice Barbier outlines four possible relationships between religion and politics: 1) absolute superiority of religion over politics and, by the way, subordination of politics to religion (Luther, Calvin); 2) ‘preponderance’ of politics over religion and, as such, subordination of religion to politics (Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau); 3) for the sake of religious and political freedom, strict separation between religion and politics, both being mutually independent (Locke, Tocqueville); 4) religion and politics under “critical thinking”�: no subordination, no separation, no intimate union (Marx). The fourth possibility offers an insight into what I call “meaningful dialogue”� or “constructive collaboration.”� It can also be termed, a critical relation between religion and politics. This perspective assumes that religion can challenge politics just as politics can challenge religion. In the process, both can learn from each other: they can mutually enrich each other for the benefit of the people they serve. As nations grow more and more cosmopolitan and multicultural, religion can learn from politics how to handle diversity as legitimate diversity and so, deal with pluralism not as a threat but as a chance. Politics, on the other hands, can learn from religion how to handle and care for the “inner dimension”� of individual and communities as a legitimate dimension of their being members of the society.

Instances of such dialogue or constructive collaboration are timidly emerging and the academic world should do more to articulate them. In the past, the idea of “reconciliation”� was essentially prevalent only in religious circles; today, it has made its way into politics. Bishop Desmond Tutu who led the experience of South Africa’s “Truth and Reconciliation”� sees No Future without Forgiveness for South Africa.The commission he led used a religious concept and experience blended in a legal framework to usher a new political dispensation after the atrocities of apartheid. More recently, it is the very hardcore religious idea of “forgiveness”� that is becoming an important concept in new directions in peace research. What seems to be a forthright theological concept has become an important idea for people exploring “alternative road to peace”� in international politics and, to psychologists concerned with social well-being. Religious sensitivity to “healing”� and the sense of commitment characteristic of a notion like “covenant”� are unexplored areas of dialogue.

If religion and politics stand truly in critical relation, they need not to be seen in antagonistic position; new links and interconnection should be established to foster the well-being of the human community. In effect, most of religious teachings (creeds and morals) and practices (cults and rituals) have a “social function.”� As such, inevitably, they regularly cross the many paths of politics. At such crossroads, only Peace as unity and orderly life in the community can prevent a fatal crash. Politics and religion do converge toward that one end, the fulfillment of human community.

Eugène Goussikindey, SJ