Secularism With or Without Democracy Freedom of religion as a constitutional right in democratic societies creates problems in political life in practice.

The thin line between religious identity of people and being political subjects in the democracy results in debates on issues of secularism. According to the news article published at BBC News agency on February 14, 2012; a more freedom of religion had demanded from the government in Britain and was expressed by a cabinet minister warning against militant secularism in the country. Muslim minister, Baroness Warsi wrote that to create a more just society, people need to feel stronger in their religious identities and more confident in their creeds. From the perspective of Habermas, in the modern world there is a need for change in understanding of secularism and application of constitutional regimes in terms of religious tradition in public and political sphere. Multi voices of society is fundamental for democracies, even they have religious discourse in demand since state cannot just ignore them because of inability of secular expression. On the other hand; a comparative political scientist Alfred Stepan has shared similar observations with Habermas, but not as much as optimistic as he is. According to Stepan, European countries are the ones in which secularism is well-established and also the ones which are not put secularism as condition for democracy within constitution, except France. He believes that as soon as a country can accomplish his concept of twin tolerations; basically there is a clear distinction and a mutual respect between political authorities and religious leaders and bodies.(213); secularism loses the meaning in traditional understanding of modernization. In this paper, I will try to compare the ideas of two scientists from the perspective of the news article and secularism in democratic societies in general. They both begin to ask with the same question of Can religion be compatible with liberal democracy? Today, we can talk about post-secular communities which have already embodied secularism in institutional and mental processes. These nations are separated from others because religion in these nations has still popular public interest even they have a long modernization history. At the same time, the absolute belief that religion loses its credit and countries become more secular in the global modernization
1

process. However, when we look at the history of west; Habermas highlights the fact that What is more surprising is the political revitalization of religion at the heart of the United States, where the dynamism of modernization unfolds most successfully.(Habermas, 2006: 1). Whereas Europe has experienced secularization and social modernization process in the parallel way in its history; the popular religious organizations and support for right-wing parties has risen in the US. More importantly: the religious Right is not traditionalist. Precisely because it unleashes a spontaneous energy for revivalism, it causes paralyzing irritation among its secular opponents.(Habermas, 2006: 2). The concept post-secularism is not suitable for the countries that do not have mature secular tradition even they have liberal and republican. Therefore, post-secular society can only exist where secular seperation between church and state institutions are not an obstacle for religious people to give voice to their demands in political arena. Another important feature of American laicism is that the introduction of the freedom of religion in the United States of America did not signify the victory of laicism over an authority that had at best shown religious minorities tolerance in line with imposed standards of its own. (Habermas, 2006: 3). In other words, secularization did not necessitate any govermental force in order to protect society from their own belief; rather state is there to protect every citizen since they are able to live their religion as much as equal. Also, the constitution is the base of this duty given to state. Habermas refers Rawls concept of public use of reason and explain his thoughts on liberal constittional state. Accordingly, The assumption of a common human reason forms the basis of justification for a secular state that no longer depends on religious legitimation. And this in turn makes the separation of state and church possible at the institutional level in the first place. (Habermas, 2006: 4). Constitutions are legitimate tools of democratic regimes especially for the making process. The legitimacy which is created through equal participation of rational citizens and accepted outcomes of it put boundry between state and religious attitudes. Also, only poitical decisions which have acceptible outcomes for all citizens
2

including religious and non-religious are legitimate and democracies should be moral and have equal distance for all group, it cannot move one over the other. In the liberal view, the state guarantees citizens freedom of religion only on the condition that religious communities, each from the perspective of its own doctrinal tradition, accept not only the separation of church and state, but also the restrictive definition of the public use of reason. (Habermas, 2006: 6). However, Habermas opposes Rawls and believes that religious communities are beneficial for democracies. Since religion take a part in ones whole life, all behavior, daily routines, attitudes toward issue, or moral judgment; it is not so easy to separate such identity from political decision. His political standing is shaped around who he is and what he believes. Therefore, it is almost impossible to imply Rawls ideas to real life. This is also valid for politicians and other officials within state institutions. However, The institutional precondition for guaranteeing equal freedom of religion for all is that the state remains neutral towards competing world views. (Habermas, 2006: 9). In the traditional liberal democracies, for the people who cannot transfer their voices because of religious discourse are restrained and cannot participate actively into political life as much as secular citizens. However, democracy and true liberalism necessitate active participation of all citizens unless a group suppresses any other. The real mission of the government is to remain neutral in order to make possible provide equal environment for every people and turn into reverse the disadvantaged position of religious people in the name of secularism. What is illegitimate is the violation of the neutrality principle according to which all enforceable political decisions must be formulated in a language that is equally accessible to all citizens, and it must be possible to justify them in this language as well (Habermas, 2006: 12). This what exactly Baroness Warsi has demanded from the state. Otherwise, she believes that Britains democracy will not be so different from any other totalitarian regimes. Moreover, according to Habermas many problems today are originated from polarization of religions. Modern societies have already given freedom of religion to all citizens, but this is not enough to
3

enable united society in order to create legitimate condition for democracy. There is a need for active participation of even religious groups in decision making process. Habermas indicates that this is only possible with ethical and learning processes, and adds However, this cognitive precondition indicates that the version of an ethics of citizenship I have proposed may only be expected from all citizens equally if both, religious as well as secular citizens, already have undergone complementary learning processes. (Habermas, 2006: 16). In addition, it is only possible in very advanced societies in a secular sense. On the other hand, Stepan begins to ask the very similar question with Habermas, but he is differentiated from him emphasizing the how freedom of religion can result in undemocratic outcomes in the name of democracy in the Islam countries. He argues that beyond institutional guarantees of democracy, as Dahl has counted in eight sections, are necessary and important but not enough for wellfunctioning democracy. Minority rights should also be regarded by the state and especially civil society should be developed to create alternatives and check the state decisions. Stepan says Democracy is a system of conflict regulation that allows open competition over values and goals that citizens want to advance (Stepan, 2002: 216). Therefore, all groups should demand their interest unless they violate rights of other citizens. Moreover, Stepan has a common ground with Habermas in the understanding of secularization today. He believes that against general accepted belief of that democracy is going behind secularism; But, from the viewpoint of of empirical democratic practice, the concept of secularism must be radically rethought. (Stepan, 2002: 222). He analyses the relationship between democracy and separation of state and church in the western world, he found interestingly that almost all of the European countries have constitutionally established churches. They are the most modern and secular countries in the world, but their understanding of democracy are different in this sense. In the history of member countries of European Union, friendly separation of church and state has been always resulted in a good way for both sides, whereas hostile separation caused civil wars, like in the the Netherlands or Spain and France. The
4

main point here is that these countries do not only support private worship of the citizens; but also they provide political organization of religious groups in the reconstruction process of secularism. Therefore, Stepan believes that however, my central analytical point stands; if we are looking for defining characteristics of a democracy vis-a-vis religion, secularism and the separation of church and state are not intrinsic part of the core definition, but what we have said about the twin tolerations is. (Stepan, 2002: 223). The well-known democratic cultures have experienced religious conflict with the state and they have mostly solved through long public discussions and a negotiation at the end. Actually Barones Warsi is asking for the same process in Britain in which religion cannot be displayed or worn in governmental buildings; when states wont fund faith schools and where religion is sidelined, marginalized and downgraded in the public sphere However, the solution of twin toleration is not common and applicable in all world democracies. In the eastern world, democracy is mostly used for non-democratic activities by the parties. Even they called them democracy and have democratic institutions which are constitutionally guaranteed, the fundamentalism of Islam in these countries turns democratic freedoms to damage the democracy. Stepan calls it free elections trap and mentions that most of the human right violations occur in these Islamic countries and in the name of Islam itself (Stepan, 2002: 233). Also, some countries democracy has guaranteed several times with the military rule, like in Turkey. In contrast to Habermas example of revitalization of religion in the US, in Islamic countries revitalization of Islam has been occurred through the free election tarp and abolished secularism in the east. To conclude, both political scientists emphasize that today well-functioning democracies need reconstruction. Modernization and secularism are no longer going hand by hand in democratic regimes. Even it is early for the eastern world to jump to this level, we have to expect from most modernized ones to come up with radical religious attitudes in active political participation in order to increase multi voices in democracy and strengthen legitimation of it.
5