Conference Islamabad, (Date will be announced later)

Conceptual Backdrop

Religious strife is at the heart of conflict and bloodshed, both in history and at present, and in many parts of the world. And religious convictions are considered to be at the heart of many situations of repression of minorities, of violence and terrorism. Both in the West and in the East, secularists plead for a secular state and for a ban on religion in the public domain. However, when we look closer at how religion connects to people’s social and political ideas and actions, the question arises whether this conventional wisdom is adequate. The intuition behind this conference is that conventional policy making in the critical domain of the complex relationships between religion and politics – and especially so in the context of the dialogue between the West and the Muslim World – is ineffective and even counterproductive.

The objectives of this conference are:

a. to challenge conventional wisdom and conventional policy making on religion, state and governance in societies;
b. to discuss alternative policies that do take into account the multiple devilish dilemmas involved in policy making in real life societies.

This conference aims to generate new thoughts and ideas – thoughts, that can give new directions to dialogue and policy making; ideas, that can guide new practices.

Setting the scene

Conventional wisdom holds that establishing a secular, religiously neutral state is the only road to harmonic social life and peace. Within Europe, the secularist tradition is strongest in France since the French Revolution. However, the measures recently taken by the French government (forbidding religious symbols in the public space), were accompanied by intense debate and broad protests.

In other European countries, the picture shows great variety. In Germany and Holland, for example, Christian democratic parties are traditionally strong; and within those parties, the connection between the Christian religious convictions and the political domain is a matter of continuous reflection and debate.

On another level, there is a general recognition of the importance of people adhering to religion and to religious beliefs, values and attitudes for the well functioning of society. Even orthodox liberals such as EC commissioner Frits Bolkestein, or orthodox socialists such as the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, recognize this state of affairs, and quite paradoxically both plead for state policies to foster religious practices. This same recommendation is to be found in the recently published party programme of the German social-democratic party SDP - a far cry indeed of some earlier versions in which religion was declared opium for the people.

It appears that the idea of a secular state is being challenged by its own adherents. What then about religion, society and governance; both in the West and in the East?

Conventional wisdom holds the following:

• The separation of religion(s) and the state and the establishing of a secular state.
• A rupture between the domain of the private and personal on the one hand, and the public domain(s) on the other hand; a split between community and society (=communitas and societas), and between society and the public-political community or the nation (=societas and civitas)
• Religion, beliefs and convictions are to be relegated to, and should remain confined to the personal or private domain
• In the public domain, the person is considered to be an individual, an autonomous and sovereign citizen

But in real life, we see people acting as real persons; they do not separate neatly the different spheres and act accordingly. They connect faith, beliefs, convictions and practices, including public-political practices. They are individuals, and at the same time they are members of a great number of communities, associations, organisations -- formal and non-formal, private and public etc. The person is not just a citizen, but a subject with multiple identities. Similarly, society is not just civitas, a collective composed of individual citizens acting in the public-political domain. Society is made up of persons; and they are both individual-social-national-communal-religious-political-civil-etc., etc., subjects – and all at the same time. Viable, vital societies are made up not only of subjects with multiple identities, but also of an infinity of communities, organizations and associations. And all this is based on the capacities and the will of those persons to look beyond their own person and the here-and-now, i.e., to match their own interest with the needs of others and of the community as a whole, and to trust each other and work together with others.

Living in society, also if we want to speak of a ‘global society’, means recognising that there is a plurality of communities in which people live a full life. In societies where the majority of the population is of one religion and belongs to one religious community, this religion or religious community may shape the personal and also public life and society as a whole to a great extent.

The challenge we face, is to be able to live together with like communities in society on the national level and on the international level. Living in society is ‘living together’ and ‘living apart’ and finding a balance between these again and again. If society is this plurality of communities in which human life realises itself, we are challenged to define new ideas of governance and democracy.

Undercurrents
Faith based politics: connecting faith with political viewpoints and practices. In the public domain, the debate is only possible if basic respect is guaranteed: no violence, no exclusion. Disensus, even on fundamental issues, is to remain an option for each participant. Can you recognise that as inherently connected with being in a human society. It also means that you do not have to surrender your faith before you can join in the public debate.
Thus, the point is not that people have beliefs or convictions and that their points of view and practices are based on those beliefs; in fact, any point of view on politics and policy choices refers implicitly or explicitly to certain axiomatic ideas or convictions or beliefs about man and society; and in this respect, faith based politics based on an explicit faith or creed – Islam or Christian politics, for example - is no exception. And each person may think that his or her viewpoint is the true one, and he or she may try to convince the others of its qualities. (See for example the experience of Christian Democratic parties in different countries.).

Governance and democracy: fuzzy and wicked situations, devilish dilemmas. Is democracy caught in trade offs between different policies based on conflicting values, resulting in swings of the pendulum.

What kind of participation do elections generate, how do they influence the mindset of people when connecting to the public sphere (“personal interest – a reward, a job or a contract – or group interest”), and how do they influence the mindset of politicians (“political struggle is for access to the loot, the idea that the state apparatus is the reward to be re-partitioned among the winners, plunder culture”).

The idea of democracy is twofold: those who are ruled should have a voice in making the rules; and it is the never ending process wherein minorities become majorities. Is there then room for alternatives to ‘Western’ democracy: is there an idea of democracy which will be realised in different situations in different ways, still being recognised as belonging to the family of democracy.

Issues
Religion and the state;

• the religious leaders and the secular leaders;
• the religious communities and the national community/the nation.

Religion and the constitution

• Modalities in which Islam figures in constitutions.

Religion and society

• In the political arena, religious as well as other convictions, might give rise to deep groups and to fundamentalism.
• Religious pluralism and the person’s multiple identities; identities – beliefs, convictions values and virtues – and practices.

Religion and democracy

• What are the preconditions for democracy in order to function (synchronic).
• What are possible perverse stimuli and outcomes of elections (‘illiberal democracy’).
• What is the relationship with economic and social conditions.

Islamic democrats and democracies and Christian democrats and democracies

Islam as a State religion and what this term entails

Interfaith dialogue

• Basic values and virtues in Islam and Christianity – in the light of society / system survival