Secular Governments’ Internal Stability and International Standing

Outline

I. Introduction

A. Secularism - the exclusion of religion from political power. This divides the role of politics from the expression of religion. 

B. Sectarianism - rule by an ethnic or religious group. Power is held by an exclusive group inherently and deliberately excluding others from holding political power. 

1. The effect of religion on internal stability and the effect on international relations standing. Unstable countries prove to be ineffective ally’s in the international relations arena. 

II. Research Question/Research Design

B. Is religious tolerance responsible for internal stability? Conversely, is intolerance a force destabilizing to a country including increasing violence and terrorism?

1. “The Catholic Wave” by Daniel Philpott.

a) Discusses the give and take of tolerance between the Catholic church, the Vatican, and various governments.

2. "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2012. This source evaluates the global impact of religious tolerance and its effect on individuals. 

a) Note on the number of Shia Muslims imprisoned by the Saudi government and the call for their release. 

3. Would a sectarian government’s international standing improve with increased religious tolerance? 

a) Analysis of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon as examples of sectarian nations. Are they ‘stable’?  

(1) What cultural characteristics does each country based on their sectarian structure?

(2) What is their international standing?

b) What is the effect of religious tolerance on stability?

(1) Since sectarian governments are not stable how does this reduce their international standing?

(2) Would increasing religious tolerance increase stability and international standing?

c) Philosophical ideas of secularism as an exclusively western theory.

d) Notions of Sectarianism, the use of violence by sects in history include a Christian history of violence. 

III. Pakistan

A. Military dictatorship since 1958. 

1. Consideration of "Democracy in Pakistan." by Hasan-Askari Rizvi as instructive on the political and cultural history of Pakistan. 

2. Military rule has been the primary concern to ensure the security of the state. 

3. Consideration of "Sectarianism and Its Implications for Pakistan Security: Policy Recommendations Using Exploratory Study." by Saima Afzal discussing the effect of sectarian violence in Pakistan. 

a) Concerns of external support for sectarian violence as destabilizing. 

b) The expanding influence of Islam in Pakistan (religious intolerance expanding). 

c) Afzal’s conclusion the religious intolerance is the real problem in Pakistan and its greatest barrier for democratic reforms. 

4. Religious tolerance is impossible without complete regime change. 

a) The military cannot control people internally nor externally. 

b) A history of negative international standing because of growing security concerns. 

c) The expanding impact of religious intolerance as destabilizing. 

IV. Saudi Arabia

A. Wealthy oil-exporting sectarian nation dominated by Sunni Muslim Royal family. 

1. Consideration of “Sectarianism as Counterrevolution: Saudi Responses to the Arab Spring. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism” by M. Al-Rasheed. 

a) Saudi use of propaganda to squelch Shia opposition and propose an Iranian security threat. 

b) Proactive use of propaganda to solidify:

(1) The sovereignty of the royal family.

(2) Sunni Muslim.

2. Sectarian Stability and international standing. 

V. Lebanon

A. A confessional sectarian regime with powers divided ethnically, consideration of "The Case of Lebanon: Encourage One Another to Work for Peace and Justice." by Issa Diab 

1. The cultural and political history of Lebanon. 

2. The separation of powers among the Maronite Christians, Shia Muslims, and Sunni Muslims. 

3. Growing tension among ethnic groups over unequal access to power. 

4. The challenge of the legitimacy of a sectarian regime born out of a desire to stop a civil war.  

VI. United States

A. Control group for a secular form of government. Discussion of the division of power and the impact on the international stage. 

VII. Analysis and Discussion

A. Consideration of the historical background of secularism. “Subordinating Religion: The Logic of Secularism in International Relations Theory” by Elizabeth S. Hurd

1. This source recounts the philosophical origins of secularism in International Relations Theory. 

2. This source gives a good theoretical basis for secularism as well as its roots in western political tradition.

B. Common themes in each studied sectarian nation:

1. Inherently unstable because of racism. 

2. Violence and systemic instability in sectarian regimes. 

3. Lack of democratic structures of sufficient alternative structures to accommodate religious pluralism. 

4. Postulated challenges to increasing religious tolerance. 

b) Its effect on internal stability. 

c) Its effect on international standing. 

C. Review of International Relations theory

1. “Religion, Culture, and International Conflict by Michael Cromartie.

b) Discusses the impact of religion on international relations, particularly regarding the Middle East.

c) This source will help discuss the delicate balance between tolerance of religion by the state and the importance of separation between the two and provide a general context for the specific nations studied in this paper.

VIII. Conclusion

A. Summary of analysis including recommendations. 

1. Review of findings

b) Sectarian governments are inherently unstable. 

c) Violence and internal instability negatively affect international standing. 

d) Increased international standing would be insufficient with just increased religious tolerance. 

(1) Sectarian regimes lack the organizational structure to increase religious tolerance. 

Introduction

Secular and sectarian theories of government pit the western philosophy of absolute separation of religion from the political life of a nation against the notion that political acts should be grounded in religion. The main difference in secular and sectarian government is the level of religious tolerance. For sectarian regimes, there is less religious tolerance and the question is whether the lack of religious tolerance affects the stability of the regime. As evidenced in this paper, religious intolerance breeds instability. The resulting instability affects the regimes standing in international relations. Ergo, it would follow that a country interested in increasing its international standing would invite religious tolerance into their regimes. However, such is not the case as evidenced by this paper’s analysis. 

Sects compete for power using passionate appeals to virtues and law transcending the human experience. The devotion to these virtues is very personal and in the cases of militants, justifies violent acts for the expressed purpose of destabilization and coercion. In other cases, violence is used as a form of control. Regardless of the motive, the inherent exclusion of pluralism in a nation affects its stability and prevents the nation from being a reliable ally in the international arena. 

This paper will employ the key features of international relations theory specifically the analysis of the organizations and individuals making up a state and evaluating those institutions in constructive and liberal ways. The analysis of each subject nation will include consideration of a “ground-up”, approach meaning that the role of individuals and their ability to influence government power to provide internal security and international standing will be evaluated. This is the most prudent approach to the qualitative analysis of the underlying research question on whether religious tolerance has a direct effect on internal security and whether such tolerance effects a state’s ability to function in the ambiguous realm of international relations.

Using the ideas of international relations theory including individual, organizational, liberalism, and constructivism, this paper analyzes subject nations’ relative degrees of religious tolerance, that effect on internal stability, and, by extension, their standing in the international community. To that end, the ideas of secularism and stability are articulated. The conclusion is that internal stability does increase a country’s standing in the international community. However, increasing religious tolerance is an insufficient remedy to sectarian violence without the addition of a political structure promoting individual access to power.  

Research Question/Research Design

The research question contains two parts.  First, “Is religious tolerance responsible for the internal stability of subject countries? Second, “Would secular government with religious tolerance improve international relations standing?” In answering these questions, a qualitative research method is employed examining the structures and functions of sectarian countries including Pakistan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. For contrast, the United States is analyzed as representative of a secular government.  Theories of international relations will be applied to the organizational structure of each country including evaluation based on theories of liberalism and constructivism. Liberalism in international relations theory will provide an analysis of how the state’s culture and characteristics evaluate individual moral concerns and access to governmental power. This will lead to an analysis of the state’s construction illuminating the state character and state behavior in international relations terms. The yield of this analysis will be crucial in evaluating the effect of secularism and sectarianism as it affects the state’s standing in international relations. 

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon will be evaluated for the level of internal stability and correlates will be drawn comparing their relative level of religious tolerance. Stability will include the evaluation of the presence and use of power in the subject nations and the relative effect that has on the country’s standing as a whole regarding its ability to interact internationally. Qualitative analysis will be conducted within the understood elements of international relations theories as well as source material outlining the level of religious tolerance of sectarian nations including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. Each country will be evaluated for the effect of religion in each of these sectarian nations and the ensuing effect in international standing.  The United States will be the control group country of a secular nation and analysis of that state’s secular regime will be compared to the sectarian subject nations. 

Variables include the level of religious tolerance in the subject state’s governance. The relative tolerance of religion in the subject states is a critical measure on addressing the underlying research question of whether religious tolerance effects a state’s international standing.   

For this paper, analyses of foreign policy and international relations on the state, organizational and individual level will be most instructive. Using these theories of analysis proves most effective in evaluating a nation’s internal security and international standing. The research question asks whether secularism or sectarianism provides for greater security in the internal structures of a nation. The result of this internal security is postulated to have an impact on that countries ability to interact on the systemic level of international relations. 

Internal stability of any nation is a critical measure of how effective that nation is in the realm of international relations. The stability of a government is a function of the level of religious tolerance in that country. Secular governments are inherently more stable as the level of religious tolerance is high accommodating pluralistic normative values and a diverse economy. Sectarian governments are inherently exclusionary and both theoretically and practically internally unstable. This is directly linked to religious intolerance and the inability for a sectarian government to maintain internal stability due to tensions among the people of that country. Therefore, since sectarian governments are not stable, their standing in international relations is reduced. Further, since this instability is caused by religious intolerance, it follows that religious tolerance would increase the stability of the nation and thus increase their standing in international relations.

Religious intolerance is not a valid preference for a form of government if the desire of the government is to have a strong standing in the international arena. Sectarian, theocratic, autocratic governments suffer the consequences of severely limiting the individuals access to power in their dominated regimes. Racism, violence, and chaos flourish in sectarian regimes. The access to power is inherently ethnocentric and limited and history has instructed that this is destabilizing and negatively affects a country’s international standing. 

Secularism in government is a philosophy born out of western philosophy. Governments relying on religion to inform their political decisions became suspect because religion is considered to be irrational and too vague to use in place of the law of man. During the Enlightenment, power was gradually limited against the autocratic monarchs beginning with the Magna Carta of 1215. The significance of the Magna Carta is not that it gave power to the people, it limited the power of the monarch. This was the genesis of centuries of ever-expanding reorganization where the power was redistributed to ever-expanding popularly elected representatives. The ultimate experiment in secularism came with the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787. Then no there was no democracy on earth. The United States was branded for failure by the international community. Instead, over several hundred years or secular rule, the United States grew to be the last remaining superpower with economic and security interests in every economy in the world. Further, its model of secularism has inspired most of the world as centuries of governmental reform have since taken place. 

Regardless of the wide acceptance of secularism as a stabilizing form of government, sectarianism remains a dominant force in some parts of the world. Of note, most sectarian governments recognized today are in the Northern part of the African Continent and the Middle/Near East. Further, most sectarian governments have some form of Islam as their controlling moral code. Like any religion, there are different sects of Islam and in each of these countries tension among the sects is palatable and destabilizing. Since religion is a dominant force in political life in sectarian nations, these theological tensions are heavily influential in the stability of the country. 

For sectarian nations, the competition for power is fierce. Definitively, some people are completely excluded from the authority of power. Without access to power, an excluded group becomes a slave to the ruling elite. Such a position in society is largely unsettling and often to maintain this social structure violence is used by minority sects excluded from other ways of accessing political power. Violence is also used by the ruling elite to maintain order over the disenfranchised. 

From a historical perspective, sectarian violence has been part of the human experience for hundreds of years and not just by Muslims. Considering The Crusades, the 100 years’ war, and every other holy war, more Christians have been killed over the meaning of the Bible than any other text ever, including the Quran. Let there be no mistake in assuming that modern extremist Muslims hold the exclusive title for using violence to express their religious views, Christians have been doing it far longer, and that is the main reason secularism arose from the ashes of many dead sacrificed for dogma. 

Pakistan

Pakistan is a sectarian government alleging to be a democracy that has been under some sort of military dictatorship since 1958.  Although democratic institutions are present, they have no efficacy in promoting stability or protecting individual rights. Pakistan’s political history is described by Professor Hasan-Askari Rizvi as, “Characterized by frequent breakdowns of constitutional and political arrangements, atrophy of political institutions and processes, the ascendancy of the bureaucracy and the military, and constitutional and political engineering by military rulers to protect their power interests” (118). In essence, the institutions of state have been under military control for so many years that the institutions of democracy have deteriorated to a place where they are not functioning. In part, the dilution of democracy in Pakistan has been a function of the military’s desire to maintain political power. The reliance of military control o of Pakistan was considered urgent to provide security of the nation from tension in the region. The thought was that even though a constitution is present in this country the democratic institutional framework when whatever security crisis was acutely dealt with by martial law. 

For the sake of security, political institutions including elected legislature and president are subjugated. “Pakistan had inherited weak political institutions, a strong bureaucracy, and a strong military. This trend was reinforced by the initial efforts to strengthen internal and external security. This policy favored [sic] state institutions like the bureaucracy and the military at the expense of civilian political institutions like political parties and elected legislature and executive. The imperative of representative governance, constitutionalism, and power-sharing was ignored from the beginning” (Rizvi 117). It took nine years for Pakistan to frame its first constitution in March of 1956. However, by the time the constitution was instituted the military had been the de facto government in the interim and remains today.  Although organizationally and theoretically, Pakistan is a democratic republic, functionally it is a military dictatorship with designs for an Islamic state. 

Pakistan never got around to effectively organizing its democratic institutions. While under martial law, the military commanders saw the transfer of power to democratic institutions as threatening to the power of the heads of the military. In their desire to maintain order and power the institutions of democracy had been subordinated to obliteration through a series of gradual changes to the constitution to give primacy of power to the military. “These military rulers were able to civilianize their military rule by taking measured steps that included co-option of a section of the political elite; constitutional changes to ensure the primacy of the ruling generals after the end of direct military rule; exclusion of the political leaders and parties that questioned the civilianization process; and the holding of carefully managed elections” (Rizvi, 120). The dominance of military rule was maintained by a functional bureaucracy in Pakistan to assist whichever military ruler is in power at any given time. 

Stability in Pakistan comes from its military authoritarian rule, “The Pakistan military has developed strong stakes in policymaking on security and foreign policy issues, making it impossible for civilian leaders to function autonomously or assert their primacy in policymaking... [the] Pakistan military maintains strong interests in governmental affairs because it wants to protect its professional and corporate interests, especially its industrial and commercial activities, which yield financial resources to the military that are beyond parliamentary control” (Rizvi 132). The power of government is held by the military which yields stability in the regime with concern to economic policy. However, this hold by the military on government power prevents democratic institutions to assume governmental power. Reforms postulated in Pakistan are less concerned with expanding democracy, rather by integrating Islamic religious views into the governmental structure. 

Expanding Islamic influence and therefore religious intolerance in government is a pressing issue whereby the expansion of Islamic law has come both from the military authority itself and militant sectarian groups including the Taliban. “The roots of these trends go back to the days of General Zia-ul-Haq’s military government when he encouraged Islamic orthodoxy and militancy as a state policy. The conflicts between various Islamic denominational groups have increased. Invariably the religious groups subscribing to or supporting Islamic militancy are more active in building pressure on those who do not share their perspective on Islam... They aim at overwhelming the Pakistani State by causing instability and chaos” (Rizvi 132). As Rizvi describes, there is tension among sects within Islam oh how to integrate Islamic law into state organizational expressions of power. Individuals of differing sects are using different political tools to purport their views on Islamic law. From one, the institutions of the state from the inspiration of the political leaders. From another, from individual groups using violence as political communication and coercion. 

Without legitimate institutions in government to address these issues, the internal stability of Pakistan is highly threatened. Professor Saima Afzal et al. opine, “Sectarianism is a real threat to the security of Pakistan. It has shaken the basic foundation of Pakistan and has created a disturbance, violence, hatred, and disorder in society. From [the] last three decades sectarian conflicts have increased suicide bombings, bomb blasts, assassinations, and terrorist attacks” (23). From Afzal’s perspective, the country is in chaos, therefore, internal security is being threatened. This chaos is a combination of an oppressive military government with an impotent democratic political apparatus. However, the real problems in Pakistan are religious intolerance. 

Religious intolerance is severely destabilizing to Pakistan because there is disagreement among Muslims whether Islam goes with a western-style democracy. “Most conservative and orthodox clergy favor [sic] establishment of a puritanical Islamic state with an emphasis on the regulative, punitive and extractive role of Islamic injunctions. Others emphasize the egalitarian norms of Islam and view Islamic teachings as sources of guidance and law-making rather than a specific structure of governance” (Rizvi 131). This explains just one disagreement among Muslims on the role of Islam in government. The discussion has not improved as groups have resorted to violence in furtherance of their ideology. “Various Islamic vigilante and militant groups and their supporters use violence to impose their vision of Islam. The roots of these trends go back to the days of General Zia-ul-Haq’s military government when he encouraged Islamic orthodoxy and militancy as a state policy. The conflicts between various Islamic denominational groups have increased” (Rizvi 131). The area of most concern for sectarian violence is the idea of imposing through fear and coercion their vision of Islam. This highlights one of the major problems with sectarianism, its inability to undergo liberal scrutiny and accommodate pluralistic views. The dissidence among groups is only enhanced as each sect approaches their interpretation of Islam as the correct one and it must be accepted as absolutely correct without question. There is no accommodation for those who agree otherwise. 

Violence breeds violence as one militant group attacks another there must be retribution and thus a vicious cycle is to the detriment of security. “Pakistan is an Islamic state, but different religious-political leader[s] exploit religion for their own interest and divide society into different sects. Islamic fundamental parties of Pakistan are also active in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The extremists got education from this Madrassa. These extremists also provide arms to Sunni operating in Pakistan killing Shia and as a retaliation Shia killing Sunni” (Afzal et al. 22). Internal security is further threatened by external influence and support for sectarian violence. Although the foundation of these attacks may be grounded in some valid interpretation of Islam, the powers of persuasion resulting from the idea that they are honoring God (or Allah) by their actions are very tempting ideas. This is a prime example of the type of zeal that secular philosophy avoids because using force in the name of God is nearly impossible to reason with and promotes dangerous and often unreflective devotion. 

Although the military is in control, they are unable to protect their citizens from the violent uprising of religiously intolerant groups using violence as their tools of communication. “Sectarianism is a real threat to the security of Pakistan. It has shaken the basic foundation of Pakistan and has created a disturbance, violence, hatred, and disorder in society. From the last three decades, sectarian conflicts have increased suicide bombings, bomb blasts, assassinations, and terrorist attacks. Although Pakistan has threats from India from time to time, the immediate threat is sectarian strife” (Afzal et al. 23). While the organizational structure is theoretically in place to satisfy the idea of democracy it is functionally impotent and therefore not a place to protect individuals rights. Since the individuals of this country are existing in an unstable government with internal security concerns, the resulting effect in the international relations arena is that this country is unstable. 

Because Pakistan is so internally unstable it has drawn the attention of the international community because of its regional significance. It is unclear whether Pakistan could be an ally for the stability of the region because it is unclear the depth of the influence of militant Islamic sects like the Taliban. When it was discovered that Osama Bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan, the United States did not inform Pakistani intelligence of their intent to extract the most wanted sectarian terrorist because the United States did not trust the Pakistani government. So great was the value of the target, that the United States violated international agreements to commence the operation. The diplomatic fall out has been insignificant. As offended as the authoritarian regime may have been by the invasion by the United States, they are in a diplomatically precarious position. 

Pakistan’s instability is directly correlated to profound religious intolerance. There is no acceptance of multiple sects of Islam and further complicating the issue is that the competing sects are using violence as tools of persuasion. The greatest threat is the Taliban, along with other militant Islamic groups that openly engage in armed conflict with the Pakistani military. Pakistani’s live a delicate life of fear of violence, economic insecurity, and military rule. Although the democratic processes are in place, the people of Pakistan have no hope of those structures working in their favor. As long as sectarian violence is part of the day to day life in Pakistan, it will not enjoy significant standing in the international arena beyond being a place to watch very closely as there may be terrorist attacks against the western world because some militants believe to destroy democracy would be the ultimate end of their view of Islam. 

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is a wealthy oil-exporting sectarian autocratic regime ruled by the single Al-Saud royal family since 1932. The Saudi King is the absolute head of state and government as well as the final religious authority. Saudi laws are based on Shari'ah law interpreted from the Quran. Religion is the absolute inspiration for all governmental activity and authority. A strict religious code is enforced and those who practice other religions are not permitted to do so in public (Al-Rasheed 513) Saudi Arabia is a sectarian Islamic country there are two main sects of Islam competing in Saudi Arabia, the Shia, and Sunni Muslims. The royal family is Sunni Muslims, they use the dissemination of information under the cover of government effectively in squelching any hints of Shia revolution. Two main political issues affect the internal stability of Saudi Arabia; calls for a constitutional monarchy limiting the powers of the King, and Shia rebellion against Sunni domination. Following the Arab Spring, the Saudi authoritarian regime effectively contained any effort for a revolution in their country.

During the Arab Spring in 2011 authoritarian regimes in the region were being toppled in massive public protests. There was a concern that such an event would occur in Saudi Arabia. “In light of the 2011 Arab Spring that brought down autocratic regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and is currently threatening Bahrain, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, Saudi virtual activists called for a Day of Rage on 11 March. New youth groups appeared on the internet under names such as the National Youth Movement and the Free Youth Movement. Both called for demonstrations against the regime” (Al-Rasheed 5). Of note the planned opposition protest for the Day of Rage was not protesting Islamic law, it was an opportunity to address the push for a constitutional monarchy as well as for the release of political (Shia) prisoners. The government used social media and propaganda to not only thwart the possible demonstration but to also strengthen the official state religion. “Even without the preconditions for a revolution in Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian regime was compelled to take preemptive counter-revolutionary measures in anticipation of the domino effect of the Arab Spring” (Al-Rasheed 6).  Although the threat of revolution was not as ripe as it was in Egypt, the Saudi regime thought it necessary to protect their authority and strengthen internal security. 

The ruling Al-Saud royal family has been effective in using propaganda to squelch the momentum of any protests for regime change. “During the Arab Spring, Saudis were exposed to two contradictory discourses both sponsored by the state: a religious one in support of Sunni unity against Shia heretics, and a so-called liberal discourse denouncing religious scholars and their sectarianism” (Al-Rasheed 522). The result of this campaign was confusion. However, in this confusion, loyalty to the royal family increased and the Sunni majority’s influence was increased. 

The Saudi authority is clear, the country is organized and although there is religious intolerance, the country is not facing the same destabilizing efforts witnessed in other countries in the region. The primary concern of the Saudi authoritarian regime is, “To control both the Sunni and Shia population and prevent them from pursuing political rights that would eventually lead to the overthrow of authoritarian rule. For the foreseeable future, the Saudi regime will continue to frighten the majority with the Shia/Iranian threat to delay political reform. The real threat to Saudi authoritarianism is the development of a national opposition composed of both Sunnis and Shia, and Islamists and secularists” (Al-Rasheed 522).  Professor Al-Rasheed outlines the chief threat against the Saudi regime would be secularists or a coalition of the oppressed group ultimately organizing and rising up against the ruling family. The Saudi government is well aware of that threat and is fanning the flames of the devastating effects of a Shia revolution or the threat from neighboring Iran. 

Lebanon

Following the end of World War I, France acquired the northern portion of the former Ottoman Empire from Syria in 1920. Lebanon became independent in 1943. However, the country was marred by internal conflict. Its inhabitants were Jewish, Muslim, and Christian. An active civil war among different ethnic and religious groups raged on between 1975-1990. The ultimate end to this war occurred with the acceptance of the Ta’if accord, a blueprint for national reconciliation. In this accord, Muslims were given a much greater voice in the political process as the country was organized into a confessional government. In this system the president is (or at least always has been) and Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the parliament a Shia Muslim. Within the parliament, itself seats are divided equally between Christians and Muslims. Following civil war occurring between 1975-1990 and throughout its history, Lebanon has dealt with the effects of strong ethnic and religious identities including Muslims and Christians (Diab 64-69). For many faiths and ethnic groups, Lebanon is the geographic home for sacred and historically significant places. 

Confessional government has proved to be a quick cover up to a much deeper problem. To settle the agonizing civil war, power was equally divided among the Christians, Shiite  Muslims, and the Shia Muslims. This provided some peace for some time. However, recently the people are beginning to protest this form of religious-democratic hybrid supporting instead more open government. The same religious group has held the same high office (president, prime minister, speaker of the parliament), since 1989. It doesn’t appear to be as democratic even if those leaders are elected.  However, the protesters are not purporting a specific plan for an alternative, they just will not change, but change to what exactly has not been articulated. This is an example of a non-secular government briefly creating stability internal to the country but not providing long term success.

Three main points are leading to a strong push in Lebanon for free and open government. First, the sectarian governmental organization has existed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it was the outcome of a political genesis and has simply carried on since then without a public show of legitimacy for this confessional organizational structure. Second, there is tension between the competing desires of the represented ethnic and religious groups. Tradition over infrastructure maintains the ethnic divides and the exclusion of ethnic groups to political power is creating increasing tension.  Finally, there is a general push for peace among Muslims and Christians. This is considered normal as the characteristics of the individuals in a nation change over generations occurred since the forming of a sectarian government. It is believed with more communitarian thinking, all groups in Lebanon will benefit (Gaer 40).  

Lebanon has not been the model for comity among the international community historically. The challenge in dealing with a confessional government is figuring out who really has the power. When the United States negotiates internationally the President of the United States as both head of state and head of government is vested with the power. To negotiate with a confessional government requires allaying the concerns of three heads with different powers and different faiths. It’s not just the faith, it is how the faith is expressed.  

Sectarianism has worked for Lebanon for the past several decades. However, a Muslims ability to become president is nonexistent. Ethnic and religious groups may access the government only in certain areas. There is not broad individual access to the power of government. Lebanon has been relatively stable since the Ta’if accord, however, growing displeasure with limits on individual expression is causing civil unrest. The rise in strife results in lower standing internationally. That and the challenge of negotiating with three different ethnic groups with divided power makes Lebanon an organizationally challenging country to interact with on the global stage. 

United States

The United States of America is a secular nation considered to be the last world superpower after it succeeded in modern-day Russia in the cold war. Secularism has been the hallmark of the United States since the new world was discovered. Outlined in its charter is the strict prohibition of a state-sanctioned religion. Although the meaning of this has taken different views throughout the nation’s history, a sufficient political apparatus exists in the United States for individuals to access the powers of government and to express their religious beliefs and criticisms of the government. 

Stability in the United States is achieved through a deliberate delineation of political power. The institutions of political power have not changed in centuries however the people who hold those positions do change often. Stability is further established by a formulaic approach for individual participation in government. Some vote, some don’t, and if there is a grievance, there is an accepted process to address these grievances. It is clear in the United States who has the power. The United States generally takes a liberal approach to notions regarding democracy. However, it fails to be as open-minded as to accept a sectarian regime as legitimate. From the constructivist perspective, the United States has a national character of strength and dominance with a preference for secularism as it remains suspicious of sectarianism for the same reasons that secularism was first articulated. 

The United States secular government dominates the world stage playing the role of the superpower in international relations. This nation has economic interests in every part of the world and uses a mix of military and diplomatic interactions to protect those interests.

Analysis and Discussion

Analysis of each sectarian regime has proved that the inherent discrimination for religiously based governments breeds internal instability. A consequence of this instability is less standing in the international community. Regarding the question of whether increasing religious tolerance in these sectarian nations would promote stability thus increased international standing is a resounding no. 

Common to each of the sectarian regimes analyzed is a fundamental lack of democratic structures to accommodate access to political power by individuals living in these countries. They are subject to religiously ruled authority where there is no ability for any individual outside of the ruling sect’s ethnic or religious group to ascend to power. The closest form of government with the best chance for substantial reforms increasing religious tolerance is Lebanon where power is already shared among different ethnic groups. Unlike Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where power is exclusively held by a single sect. 

Although each regime has varying degrees of religious intolerance the effect on stability insecurity is seen differently. The most unstable country is Pakistan. While the democratic processes are constitutionally in place, military rule has rendered them useless. Complicating the issue is violent extremism of different sects of Islam. The military has proved ineffective in ensuring internal security and is unable to stop the external support of violence within its own country. Promoting religious tolerance in Pakistan would be impossible without an overhaul of the entire political system. However, given the current system, there is the insufficient ability of any of the sects to productively assume power and use it in a stabilizing way. In all likelihood, the internal security of Pakistan will be of concern for the international community as there is still credible concern that militant Islamists use Pakistan and its instability as a base for terrorist attacks in other parts of the world. 

Pakistan is not the only sectarian regime concerned by external influence on its internal sectarian strife. Saudi Arabia is the wealthiest sectarian regime with its power held exclusively by the ruling Al-Saud family inspired. Considering the revolutions of the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia used its control over the media to continue to criticize Shia Muslims and foster loyalty for the ruling royal family. In Saudi Arabia, there is no democratic infrastructure, but there isn’t the destabilizing force of rampant violence as seen in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia’s standing in the international community is based more on its wealth than its religious tolerance. Increasing religious tolerance in Saudi Arabia would not promote more stability than it already has because the authoritarian rule of the royal family would be subject to review. Efforts to this end would likely breed more instability as long as there aren’t truly democratic institutions where power is properly accessed and transferred. A form of political power divided among different sects in Lebanon. 

The confessional government of Lebanon divides political power among three sects. Traditionally, each sect has held the leadership position in an important institution of government. In Lebanon, different religions are relatively tolerated, but they are encapsulated. Although members of each sect have access to power, it's limited and these limitations are the fodder for the call for reforms. Lebanon stands the best chance of increasing their standing in the international community because they have to function democratic institutions already in place in their political government.  

It is difficult to avoid a measure of secular bias when considering structures of government in terms of religious tolerance and international standing. However, the United States, a secular government, has proven most effective in accommodating religious tolerance by deliberately excluding religion from its political institutions and life. The complete separation of religion from politics appears to be the most effective form of religious tolerance for both internal stability as well as international standing.

Conclusion

It was first established that sectarian regimes are inherently unstable because they exist with the automatic exclusion of some people to governmental power. In a purely homogenous state, this would not be as destabilizing as it is in sectarian Muslim nations like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. 

In these countries, there is harsh disagreement between different ethnic and religious groups both claiming the superiority of their religions. Each countries inability to constructively handle this disagreement breeds the threat of violence. The worst-case was Pakistan. 

In Pakistan, the threat of violence is so great that militant Islamic groups are unapologetic for their terrorist activities targeted at anyone that is not of their ilk. The Pakistani authoritarian military government is incapable of providing security for its citizens and is also unable to contribute to the security of the region. The government is unable to control the external influence of the Taliban in its internal affairs. The result is a completely untrustworthy regime that has no standing in international relations. The question for this paper is whether greater religious tolerance would be a remedy for this inherent stability. 

Pakistan is so unstable that the already present democratic institutions are ineffective. The ultimate problem for religious tolerance in Pakistan is that when a religious sect turns violent, reason and comity is not a priority or even a viable compromise. Dominance is the end goal for a militant sect and anything less is unacceptable. Would religious tolerance increase the international standing of a country like Pakistan? Theoretically yes, practically no. Until the militant external influence of sects is completely cut off, Pakistan cannot effectively create an environment where stability and religious tolerance can flourish.

Secularism is born out of the notion that reliance on religion over reason is counterintuitive and inherently violates the rights of individuals to express freedom of thought. The success of economic influence, military strength, and civil rights of western secular governments give credence to this notion.  In continuing to answer this question the opposite of secularism is examined, sectarianism. 

In sectarianism, the power of government is held by an ethnic or religious group. This form of government is inherently exclusionary as it prohibits by law or custom the access to power of certain individuals. Of the sectarian regimes evaluated all had some level of internal instability based exclusively on religious intolerance. In all cases, the stability of a sectarian nation results from the conflict among different sects within those countries. The instability of these countries was not merely a function of religious intolerance, it was the ensuing violence used by militant sectarians in their attempts to purport their Islamic views as well as destabilize the ruling authority in the nation. If these countries had a mechanism in place to accommodate value pluralism where each sect was able to adequately express their views without the use of violence each country would enjoy greater internal stability. 

In sectarian regimes, the denial of access to political power is based on some form of ideology or ethnicity. Conversely, the inclusion of individuals without inherent racism will expand the tacit consent and loyalty of the individuals making up a nation. In essence, it lessens internal strife and therefore increases stability. 

Stable regimes have more legitimacy on the international stage because their organizational characteristics as outlined in international relations theory are more predictable. Predictability cannot be undervalued in diplomatic relations. In the international arena, there is no binding law, it is a field of consensus and trust. If a nation is predictable then it is reliable and more trustworthy. When agreements are reached they are more likely to be upheld. This increases the standing of countries in international relations. Taken together, this paper shows that religious tolerance increases the stability of a country. The more stable the country the more standing this country will have in international relations.

Works Cited

Afzal, Saima, et al. "Sectarianism and Its Implications for Pakistan Security: Policy 

Recommendations Using Exploratory Study." IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (JHSS), vol. 4, 2012, pp. 19-26.

Al-Rasheed, M. “Sectarianism as Counter-Revolution: Saudi Responses to the Arab Spring.” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, vol. 11, 2011, pp. 513–526. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9469.2011.01129.x

Diab, Issa. "The Case of Lebanon: Encourage One Another to Work for Peace and Justice." 

International Congressional Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 2010, pp. 65-78.

Gaer, Felice D. "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious 

Freedom May 2009." U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009,  permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps20328/final%20ar2009%20with%20cover.pdf 

Rizvi, Hasan-Askari. Democracy in Pakistan. Project on State of Democracy in South Asia as part of the Qualitative Assessment of Democracy, Lokniti (Programme of Comparative Democracy), Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi, 2011.