To explain how globalization rebuilt public policy and social behavior, we study the different political, economic, and social actors - public or private, individual or collective - and the exchanges and interactions between them that are remaking international relations. This course is inspired by a French sociological and historical approach to international relations. This course is also available in french version: www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr/
Measuring the Real Political Capacity of Religion
Loading...
來自 Sciences Po 的課程
Espace mondial：法国视角下的国际研究
個評分
從本節課中
Religions
Religion is perceived as a major parameter of the present world order, but generally in an oversimplified way.
與講師見面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
How now religion is playing a role
in the political arena,
and especially in the international arena?
In anyway, the role played
in the national arena
has international consequences
as we are now in a global
and interdependent world.
The issue seems to be easy
as we have so many examples
of this political function of religion,
and however it is very difficult to observe
because there are many many illusions
when we are discovering and watching
all these political expressions.
I think we have to discriminate
three levels of relevance.
The first would be power:
how religions are defining themselves
when facing power?
The second would be mobilization:
what’s the role of religion
in political mobilization?
And the third is conflict:
what’s the role of religion
inside the national conflicts,
but overall, the role of religion
in international conflicts?
If we take into account power
as the first level of relevance,
we have to observe
something very very important,
that’s to say most of the religions
were built in protesting against power,
almost all religions were organized,
were structured by opposing to power,
and there are different kinds of expressions
of this very conflictual relation.
The first is really questioning political power
and directly protesting against it,
and the best example is to be find
in the history of Islam,
when prophet Mohamed
decided to leave the city of Mecca
for creating another,
and creating Islam at this time
was a kind of political protest,
that's to say Islam has been generated
through political protest
against the organization of the city of Mecca.
The second configuration
is to be found in other religions
which didn’t really question the political power
but ignored it and tried to organize themselves
in a kind of soft opposition against the power,
and for this reason, this new religion
was persecuted by the old power,
which feel to be threatened by the new religion.
It was quite clear for the Roman Empire
when Christianity grew up,
but it is also quite clear about Buddhism
and the role of protest played
by Buddhism against the Hindu system,
that’s to say the Hindu society,
made of inequalities,
and the Hindu kingdom.
The third aspect of this opposition
is to be found in the role of religion
which tries to balance power, to contain power.
A good example is to be found with Christianity
which was conceived through
this famous theory of the two swords,
of two fields: temporal and spiritual,
in which the spiritual power
was supposed to contain and to balance
the temporal power of the king.
The famous western theory
of balance of power
finds probably its origin
in this vision of duality,
which was created and promoted by Christianity.
Buddhism is also another example
of balancing power.
The role of Buddhist monachism
in the Tang Empire
is a good instance of this monachism
which was supposed to contain
the imperial power,
that’s why sometimes Chinese imperial power,
Tang power tries to contain
and sometimes even persecute
the monachismin China.
Another kind of opposition
is to be found in the depreciation of power,
Hinduism is conceived
as depreciating the political power.
The Brahmans are considered as superiors
to the kings and the political actors,
that’s to say it’s a manner
of saying that contemplation
is more legitimate than power
and is supposed also to contain
the pretentions of power.
But in the meantime,
religion has been used
also for strengthening power,
it’s a kind of inversion
of its original function.
If we take into account for example
the cesaropapism and the theory
of the absolutist state in Western Europe,
there were conceived
as trying to legitimize the political power,
the king power by using religious formula,
and by organizing the alliance
between church and state.
The same can be found
in some Buddhist countries like Thailand
in which the power of the king
is also fueled by Buddhism
and in which the king is considered
to have a part of religious legitimacy.
Sometimes, it’s another figure:
religion appears to be a substitute
to political power,
and this is quite clear with Islam.
When the city of Medina
was created by the prophet,
this city was considered as a substitute
to this negative city of Mecca,
and this inspired, influenced,
strongly influenced, the new Muslim Empire,
the Omayyad Empire,
and then the Abassy Empire creating
a new kind of merging
between political power and religious power.
And the same can be found now for instance
in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
when the alliance between
the family of the king
and the Al Sheikh family
which was considered as a religious family,
providing a religious legitimacy
to the king and to the kingdom.
And sometimes, religion is a basis
of delegitimizing power.
The Islam protest is considered
as the way of delegitimizing
the political power.
It was the case for instance
when the Muslim brothers protested
against the power of the royal family,
and after when Sayyid Qutb contested
the power of Gamal Abdel Nasser
which was fueled by secularism.
Now if we move to the second concept,
which is the concept of mobilization,
religion is playing a very important role
in organizing in different ways
the political mobilization.
I would consider three figures.
The first one is this figure,
which is very strongly present in Islam,
of a mobilization which is considered
as more legitimate than power.
In this vision,
mobilization is defined as not only a right
but also as a religious duty.
If we take into account
the role played by Sayyid Qutb,
who was a leader of the Muslim brothers
during Gamal Abdel Nasser period,
the main argument of Sayyid Qutb is to say
that when a power is not properly rule
when a power doesn’t work
according to the Sharia,
the Islam community has not only the right
but has a duty to find against it.
And that’s why, in his mind,
Jihad is not only against
those who are belonging to other religions,
but Jihad is also to be used
inside the Muslim community when the prince,
when the ruler is not ruling according
to the Islamic law.
This is very important
because this is providing
a very strong religious legitimacy
to protest and to mobilization,
and that’s why, the Islamist tradition,
Islamist means this strong connection
between political protest and Islam,
is playing such an important role
in Muslim countries.
These protests can be oriented
against the power,
when the power is considered
as not respecting the divine law,
religious law,
but is also used against Western countries,
that’s why Islamism
was one of the first mobilizations
against Western countries.
Don’t forget that Muslim brothers
were created at the end of the 20s,
during the 20th century, and, at this time,
Hassan el-Banna was living in Ismaïlia
that's to say a city,
which was as you know
occupied by many western people
coming from Europe,
and especially from UK and France,
for the Suez Canal,
Hassan el-Banna used this Islamist formula
for contesting and protesting
against the Western presence in Egypt.
But something very important:
Islamism is not necessary
leading to a strong and violent protest.
There is another figure inside Islamism,
inside the Islamist tradition
by which politics was considered
as something not really pure
which is probably spoiling
and which must be contained.
This quietist tradition is now to be found
in some Muslim brothers
but also in some traditions of Salafism
in which politics is contested
but not really fought against,
in which people are appealed
to leave the city
and not being involved inside
political activities.
And last point,
mobilization is also a way
for expressing demands
and religion is playing
a very important role by doing that.
For instance, when opposition
is not very structured,
or is not able to bring
and to transmit social demands,
in authoritarian systems
in which religion is a kind of opposition,
which does not legally exist,
but we can find that also
in some democracies,
in which rightist parties are failing
or are not properly operating
or are delegitimized.
It’s the case for instance in Europe
after WWII when rightist parties
were weakened by WWII
and Christian democracy acted
as a substitute to these parties
as a way of bringing
and aggregating social demands.
Now last question: conflicts.
What about conflicts?
You know, we used to say
that international conflicts
are made of religious clashes,
this is the famous argument
delivered by Samuel Huntington
in Clash of Civilizations.
But it’s not really true if we observe
the present international conflicts.
It’s very hard to find a conflict,
which is directly coming from religious clashes,
the reality is that religion is, as I mentioned,
a very good emblem
which is used by political actors,
political entrepreneurs
and by states in their international activities.
But behind these emblems,
we can find many many political factors,
social factors,
which are much more important
than religious factors.
For instance, we can find this kind of
apparent religious conflict
in multi-confessional societies,
but in multi-confessional societies,
the problem is not clash of religions,
it is the clash of status
between minority and majority,
the lack of integration of minorities.
It is not a theological problem,
it is not a religious problem,
it’s a problem of political participation
and of political status.
This is the case for instance
during the Indian partition
as I mentioned in my previous lecture,
but it is also the case
in many African countries
in which the status of the religious minority
is not clear and is not politically
and institutionally organized.
It is also the case in civil wars.
Civil wars are coming from the collapse
of the social contract,
but the collapse of the social contract
doesn’t imply that there is a necessary clash
between religions.
When Iraq for instance collapsed as a nation,
as a nation state it appeared
a strong oppositions
between Shi'ism, Sunnism and Kurd people.
Kurd people, it’s no matter with religion,
it is a question of ethnicity,
but this clash was not a religious clash,
it was really a political clash.
Last example is to be found now
in international conflicts,
international conflicts sometimes appear
as religious ones
but are not religious conflicts.
If we take into account
Palestine versus Israel,
it is not a clash of religions,
it’s clearly, obviously a clash of nationalisms.
And if we take into account
for instance the Iran-Iraq conflict,
it was not a religious conflict
between Shiits and Sunnis.
If it was the case, the Iranian Sunnis
would have support the Iraqi regime,
and the Iraqi Shiites
would have support the Iranian regime.
It was not the case.
That’s why, there is kind of after-thought
about the role played
by religions in international conflicts
when the social and political factors
must be considered.
