Posts
Rationality, a Prerequisite for Lasting Peace
(Contribution in a Panel discussion titled "The role of secular governance in world peace")
A discussion about the role of secular
governance on world peace necessarily leads to the proposition that the meddling of
religion in state affairs is, at the least, one of the sources of conflicts.
This theory cannot be denied in light of the history of innumerable civil
unrests and wars waged in the name of religion. However, the same history shows
us that even secular states made wars, and many times over. Is it because secularism did not succeed to take religion out of
governance? Is there a means to cleanse politics from religion?
Secular governance is not true separation, hence no peace
The term secularism is used
generally to represent the principle of “separation of Church and state”.
Secularism is no doubt the child of 16 and 17 centuries Enlightenment. But, the
Church put up a fierce fight to deny the sovereignty of people, and to retain
its power for another three hundred years. This tug of war gradually ended in a
tie called “secularism”; sort of a balance, or a “separate but equal” dualism.
It is a compromise in the absence of victory by either side. A couple of weeks
ago I heard yet another description of secularism in a lecture at the Woodrow Wilson Center by a French professor , that
“it is a relation between religion and politics”.
Secularism has two major
shortcomings. First, secularism is the child of “half-pregnancy”; because,
secularism, as practiced, keeps the state out of religion, but does not keep
religion out of the state. In our US example, the wording of the last provision of the Constitution, which led to the adoption
of the first provision of the Bill of Rights, set the scene for this
malpractice. For examples of the meddling of religion in political decision-making
in the US, just recall what G. Bush II said at the National Religious
Broadcasters Convention 2005, “I welcome faith to help solve the nation’s
deepest problems”. No wander then, when asked whether he consulted the former President,
his father, G. Bush I
before going to war in Iraq, he answered he consulted his higher father; and the
same year in an address to Palestinian leaders he said, “I am driven with a
mission from God”. J. Carter stated in his book “Our Endangered Values” (2005),
“religious beliefs have been inextricably entwined with the political
principles I have adopted”. Similar examples can be found for many presidents, and
in our daily political life, or sadly even in Supreme Court decisions. Chief
Justice W. Rhenquist, in a minority opinion, referred to the separation of
church and state as, “a metaphor which has proven useless as a guide to
judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned”. If governance is tainted
with religion where politicians struggle for power, religion becomes the power.
Yet, we still try to spread secularism worldwide along with freedom and
democracy. I would say secular governance is not true separation of
Church and state; hence, No true separation, No lasting peace.
Secularism, not being universal, does not promise peace
The other problem with secularism
is that it is the product of only the Christian culture. Its reference point
was the biblical concept of separating Caesar and God. Accordingly, men’s rights and freedom were given recognition to govern their worldly affairs, while still
clinging on to the spiritual power. This worldview, however, is absent, in particular, in the Muslim
world. There was no such reference point as Caesar and God at the inception of
Islam; there is only God, and the state is the guardian of his message, not of worldly affairs. God’s
power cannot be shared or relinquished in Islam. While there is no institutional structure in Islam, every real Muslim is a soldier, a defender, and thus a loose cannon
of Islam. This is what makes peace difficult to reach in today’s world. You
will have to go to war if you are attacked, whether or not you are secular. Secularism, not being universal, does not promise peace.
Laic governance promises true separation, hence peace
The immediate remedy found for the
shortcomings of secularism was a stricter separation of Church and State.
Although, the separation concept was put on paper with the American Bill of
Rights of 1791, and the French Constitution of 1795, religion continued to
influence conservative representatives in both parliaments. This interference
made it necessary to introduce a stricter separation . The concept of “laicism”
was born in a 1905 law in France, and remarkably in the education system first.
The laic concept, in my own words, is
“humans, being social animals, they get organized; THEY form the state, not
God; therefore, the state may only be laic”.
Of course, we have to put laicism
to the same test of whether it helps peace, as we do secularism. I will take the two best known and
maybe the only examples of the relation between laic policies and peaceful
international relations, the policies of T. Jefferson and Ataturk. I need not
quote here documents, like Jefferson letters or Ataturk speeches, with which
you all are familiar. I will refer to only some of their deeds to demonstrate
my point. Of course, Jefferson preceded the emergence of laicism by about 100
years, but I believe he was the precursor of laicism, because of his famous and
striking description of the “separation” concept as a “wall”. During his
presidency, he did not go to war. He refused to go against France during the Napoleonic wars, despite all the domestic and foreign pressures, nor against
Britain, which engaged in a trade war with the US. He achieved the largest
territorial expansion in the US history, peacefully, through the famous
Louisiana Purchase. Then, he opened the possibility of marching further West,
by launching the Lewis and Clark expedition, instead of embarking on a military
expedition. Ataturk did not go to war either during his presidency. He reversed,
through skillful diplomacy, the Lausanne Treaty provisions that limited
Turkey’s sovereignty over the Istanbul waterways. He achieved the accession of
Hatay province to Turkey through diplomacy. During the inter-war period, he
formed regional alliances, which included countries that fought against Turkey
during WWI and even those that invaded it after the war, in both of which he had actively served as the victorious commander. Although one hundred years and
thousands of miles apart, one common point between these two men was that they
were both believers in reasoning, thus they both approached international affairs
peacefully. Their examples of laic
governance, therefore, may promise us peace.
Laic governance alone does not ensure sustainability of peace
However, although these two
examples suggest that there may be a correlation between laic leadership and peace;
their peaceful policies did not last long either, after their demise. Soon
after the term of office of Jefferson expired, the U.S. went to war with
Britain. Ataturk’s laicism fell victim to the vagaries of democracy. The religious majority delivered
totalitarianism in Turkey. The current Islamist dictator of Turkey dragged a
good part of the international community into the neighboring Syrian quagmire;
the quagmire that was the extension of the one created in Iraq by the American
leader, who took advice from his higher father. Medieval, barbaric, savage
actions ongoing in the Middle East in the name of religion, are enough proof
that secularism or even laicism in governance is not enough for achieving
global peace. Laicity of governance alone does not ensure sustainability of
peace.
Laic education is the prerequisite for sustainable peace
Jefferson and Ataturk examples show
that peace achieved by laic governance is fragile if citizens, or at least a
good majority of them, do not subscribe to laicism. The two leaders mentioned
foreshadowed also a solution for this: education of people. The only war Jefferson declared during
his presidency was against “tyranny over the mind of man”. He founded the University of Virginia, donated his library to the Congress which constituted the core of the Library of Congress. Ataturk’s
only war in peace-time was for modern education, science and progress. He founded a laic national education system free of religious teaching.
A good majority of the population
must be inquisitive, rational thus knowledgeable instead of blind believers for
democracy and peace to succeed. A global peace will remain a distant ideal,
without a true separation of Church and state generally accepted.
Before I conclude, let me share
with you an experience of the AtatΓΌrk
Society of America’s first president O. Tarhan, because I find it demonstrates
so well the argument for laic education. He once asked a French Franciscan
priest how he reconciled his priesthood with the Laic politics of his country.
The answer was simple but striking, “I am a French citizen”. The priest’s
answer shows that in a truly laic system even a cleric can be laic, as he must
be, when it concerns politics. Laic education of people, as much as laic
governance, is the prerequisite of a sustainable peace.
April 2016
