Religion and politics are intertwined and have been the focus of debates in international politics.
BY MARYAM HABIB
FEBRUARY 17, 2024
MODERN DIPLOMACY
Religion and politics are intertwined and have been the focus of debates in international politics. Both religion and politics have shaped societies and the governance systems of states throughout history. In contemporary times, the debate has shifted from the link between religion and politics to the impact of religion on political decisions. Some are of the view that religion has an important role to play in political decisions, while others argue that politics should be separate from the influence of religion. Religious values and beliefs are important for individuals, and these religious values affect their political decisions, but these political decisions can have negative outcomes. In my view, religion must be separated from politics, and the religious values of the decision-makers should not impact their political decisions.
One of the main advantages of excluding religious impact from political decision-making is the advancement of inclusivity in society. Today, almost all countries have citizens that have varying religious beliefs, so it is important for the equal representation of all the citizens that political decision-making and religious affiliations are kept separate. The countries where religion is impacting political decisions are facing issues of human rights. In India, the ruling BJP party is inspired by the ideology of the religiously inspired extremist group RSS, which is prominent in their dealings and decisions regarding Muslims in India. In many states, the laws target the Muslim community. Such actions by the government increase polarization in society. Religiously motivated political decisions undermine the democratic principles of pluralism and fairness in a society. When a government adopts an inclusive approach based on secularism, such a political system can provide fair representation to all communities, regardless of their religious affiliation. This will further promote the active participation and social coherence of society, which in turn strengthen democratic values in countries.
Religion should not impact political decisions because it undermines democratic principles, and democracy cannot thrive in a society where political decisions are made on the basis of religion. The example of Iraq after the US intervention signifies the importance of secular governance in a country. After US intervention, when the new constitution of Iraq was formulated, it was decided that the speaker of the council of representatives of Iraq would be Sunni, the prime minister would be Shia, and the president would be Kurd. This system based on the religious affiliation of the people could not thrive in Iraq, and the country is still facing political turmoil and terrorism. Democracy is based on the principle of equality, and when the citizens are not granted equal opportunities and rights, then the very foundation of democracy is undermined. The political structures and their officeholders must not be selected on the basis of religion. When promotions are based on religious affiliations, then these decision-makers will not make decisions based on ethical and rational considerations; rather, their decisions will be aligned with religious doctrines. This will create the dominance of one religious group in a country, and then the other minority communities will suffer at the hands of the majority. Similarly, by incorporating religion into political decisions, the country will be devoid of diverse perspectives. It is important for the strengthening of democracy and democratic institutions to keep religious beliefs separate from politics.
In a country where political decisions are impacted by religious beliefs, there are more chances of political bias and prejudice. If the political decisions are based on religious views, then a particular framework will be imposed on individuals who do not follow that particular interpretation of any religion or sub-sect of that religion. Such imposition of religiously motivated political decisions will limit the freedom of conscience and individual autonomy of the citizens, which is the basis of any democracy. For example, in Pakistan, if the decisions of the government are based on their religious affiliations, it will lead to the rise of sectarian conflicts. Pakistan has witnessed sectarian conflicts during the era of Zia ul Haq. In the 1980s, the government of Pakistan implemented the policy of Islamization, and the rise of different religiously motivated militant groups in Pakistan resulted in sectarian conflicts. At that time, the decisions of the government were according to the interpretation of one sect of Islam, which is Sunni Islam, which adversely affected the Shia Muslims in the country. The government’s decisions related to taxes based on religion were protested by the Shia community in the country. Similarly, the rise of religious groups of one sect that were targeting other sects resulted in extremism in the country.
The government must not be affiliated with one religious group in a country. When the government makes decisions and their affiliation is with one religious group, other communities will feel marginalized, and they will lose commitment and loyalty to the state. The Muslims in India show descent towards the government because government decisions that violate individual autonomy, such as the imposition of hijab laws and the ban on cow slaughter, are considered by the Muslims to be political decisions backed by the religious ideology of Hinduism. Such decisions are not wholeheartedly accepted by the citizens of other religions. Similarly, the citizenship act in India also marginalized Muslims coming from neighboring countries. Such religiously motivated political decisions by the government undermine democracy. There are many issues in countries that can be solved if the government adopts an inclusive approach to them. In Pakistan, the economy is on the brink of collapse. And there are reports from international economic institutions that Pakistan might default on its external payments. These successive Pakistani governments have kept on changing their finance ministers, but none of them has been able to solve this issue.
Atif Mian is a renowned economist in the world who belongs to Pakistan. The government of Pakistan does not accept his help because of his religious ideology. He belongs to the Ahmadi community in Pakistan, and that’s why the governments of Pakistan exclude him from economic policymaking. Pakistan, as a nation, is wasting this talent. If the decision-making process in Pakistan is free from religious beliefs, then he can provide valuable insights to improve the economic condition of Pakistan. This is one example where religious beliefs and their impact on political decision-making affect the overall country. This is also an example of the exclusion of diverse perspectives and valuable ideas from the political systems of the world. Many governments disregard the unique and innovative ideas given by citizens because of their religious beliefs. The politics of exclusion is the result of the impact of religion on political decision-making.
To conclude, religion must be separate from political decision-making in all countries. In countries where religion is impacting the policies and decisions of the political actors, it leads to polarization and marginalization of the religious communities, which affect the overall development of the countries. This is against the basic principles of democracy, which are based on individual autonomy and the inclusion of all citizens in the political system. The exclusion of certain groups based on their religion leads to the waste of valuable perspectives and ideas. Further, the political system cannot be strengthened if one religious group imposes its religious ideology on others and the government in power is affiliated with one particular religious ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment