Secular Governments Internal Stability International Effectiveness

Outline

Abstract

a. Secular governments are proven to provide better internal stability than non-secular governments. With increased internal stability, a secular country is better positioned to operate in the field of international relations. Further, completely secular countries are more internally stable and more effective in the realm of international relations. Case examples include comparing the United States to Lebanon (a confessional government) demonstrates that non-secular governments are unsustainable and ineffective internationally.

I. Introduction

a. The role of religious tolerance in Lebanon and its correlation to stability and international acceptance will be instructive to other countries undergoing democratic reforms. 

b. This country demonstrates a variety of religious intolerances and various levels of stability and international cooperation.

c. Research question: Is religious intolerance responsible for the internal stability or instability of these countries?  Would secularized government with religious tolerance improve their IR standings?

II. Literature Review

a. “Religion, Culture, and International Conflict by Cromartie2.

i. Discusses the impact of religion on international relations, particularly with regard to the Middle East.

ii. 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.

b. “The Catholic Wave” by Philpott3.

i. Discusses the give and take of tolerance between the Catholic church and various governments.

ii. This source will help demonstrate the correlation between religious tolerance and stability.  It will also help demonstrate how acceptance of religion can help facilitate international cooperation.

c. “The Case of Lebanon” by Diab6.

a. This source will serve as support for the recent history and current condition of Lebanon with a special focus on religious tolerance and its impact on politics.  It focuses on the harm done to government is intolerant of certain religions which then leads to international intervention.

d. “Annual Report” by Gaer7.

a. This report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom serves as an authority on the state of religious tolerance in certain nations, specifically Egypt and Iran for my purposes.  The report shows how important religious tolerance is to other nations and to what degree they monitor it and are willing to intervene because of it, thus making it an International Relations issues.

III. Research Design

a. The independent variables will be religious tolerance in the subject nations, the stability of subject nations, and the interference or lack of interference in the subject nations by other nations, which is what makes this a concern of International Relations.  There will also be a discussion of how secularization of government contributes to greater religious tolerance and greater political stability, to provide a link between decreased religious interference in domestic government and improved government.  The goal is to demonstrate that tolerant secularism is the least contentious and most stable way for a Middle Eastern government to handle religion domestically and internationally. 

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we will survey the effect of religion in the internal stability of non-secular countries as well as internal stability of secular governments. Our examples are the United States and Lebanon as a sample of a hybrid confessional government that purports a form of religious tolerance and non-secular government. We will evaluate the success and problems of the Lebanon experience. We will conclude that secular governments are more successful in international relations because they are more internally stable and that ultimately internal stability breeds external stability which advances a country’s standing in international relations. 

In answering our research question we will use the religious tolerance of the subject nations (the United States and Lebanon) comparing their respective effectiveness internally as well as externally in their interactions in international relations. We will demonstrate that tolerant secularism is the most effective way to stabilize a country and that lessons from our analysis may be applied to current countries throughout the Middle East. 

Traditionally, secular governments become better known for how exclusive they are than how inclusive they are. The idea of a religious government rubs against any idea of a democracy. The irony of this position is that in a true democracy, the people hold the governmental power and chose to vest in elected representatives. The opposite of this is that the governmental power is held by a group (autocracy), individual (monarchy), or group of religious leaders (theocracy). In some instances, a hybrid model is accepted called confessionalism. In a confessional government, representatives from each ethnic and religious group hold key positions in government, thus dividing the power among religious groups over people. 

All forms of government exist today including democracy. The only true theocracy is the Vatican where the tiny country is under the exclusive rule of the Catholic Church with the Pope as both the spiritual head of the church as well as the head of state and Vatican government. The Vatican is a successful theocracy because it is a tiny homogeneous country. Which raises the point that religious governments are best suited in small homogenous nations with single ethnicity and spiritual ideology. Nations of great diversity, or heterogeneity, have challenges facing their ability to form cohesive governments while excluding the participation of the governed either by ethnicity or religion.

Reconciling a secular government against a democratic one becomes sticky. In the United States, governmental power is held predominantly by Christians. However, we do no have staunch standings against certain people running or holding office based on their religious affiliation. The history of the United States is born out of the desire to flee religious persecution. It is central to the core beliefs of the United States that no religion will be favored over another. For purposes of this essay, the question could be framed in the sense that the more open a country is to religious tolerance the better position it holds within international relations. The United States is an example of the power and abilities of a secular government. Because it is more inclusive the opportunity for economic prosperity is much greater. Further, people are attracted to a secular country because of religious freedom. Although the United States has its civil rights issues, on the idea of religion, the United States’ steadfast position against it has been time tested. 

One main advantage to a secular government in international relations comes from understanding the principles of the religion should provide predictability in their response to international trade and negotiations. The ultimate aim in international relations is predictability as this breeds stability. When nations gather to negotiate trade, peace, or another pressing international issue, if they know that the one nation is a religious nation, then an understanding of the precepts of that religion will help predict the reaction to proposals. The United States has been criticized for supporting theocratic parties and dictators in the past because they were more stabilizing from the United States’ perspective. The United States works hard to maintain its world domination in both the free-market economy and in religious tolerance. This seems untenable to some interest groups and their chosen form of retaliation is violence. 

Following the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the resulting war, and the desire of an occupied nation to form a free religious government, the very notion of whether it's possible to have a theocratic democracy has been presented. More pressing, could a theocratic government be successful in protecting the rights of its citizens. The challenge is that definitively, a theocratic government excludes all of those not of the same religion from power. On a basic level of liberalism, the exclusion of any group of people deprives the comity of their ability to intellectually and civically engage in their self-government (Cromartie, 14). Eventually, someone will not want to be part of the state religion and will be frustrated that they aren’t fully recognized citizens with the rights of others and they will spark a revolution like most recently, the Arab spring. Democracy, however, demands that the people have the right to choose. If a secular, theocratic, or confessional government is chosen, shouldn’t that choice be respected throughout the world?

Currently, we are observing emerging democracies in the middle east. The Arab Spring is challenging the dictatorial rule of several nations including Egypt among other others. The rebellion has not been exclusively ideological or religious but based more on basic democratic freedoms, including freedom of communication, and rejection of oppressive economic policies. These basic freedoms must be secured before people are able to engage in freedom of expression. In the successful revolutions, the challenge that faces the country is to identify itself as well as form an identity of its government. Will this government be theocratic, confessional, secular, or democratic? Its an exciting time in international relations because the result of these decisions will have effects throughout the world. 

The question of this paper is whether secular governments are more stable than open governments. One point for stability is that secular governments by definition exclude some people from accessing political power based solely on the fact that they are of a certain faith. They may be able to advance toward power in their own faith, assuming they have one, but the problem remains in how sectarian governments exclude people. That is the liberal rub. Regardless of ideology in the United States, anyone with few exceptions is able to rise in politics. Excluding people from the powers of government is inherently suspect and will, as history has shown, lead to revolution. Also, does a secular government have a better standing on the world stage or international relations? Certainly not, unless of course, the sectarian group that a nation would rather deal with is in power at the time of negotiation. The problem is that internal instability leads to external instability and its difficult to trust a secular government as power may shift. Ultimately the concern for dealing with a secular government on in the international arena is the underlying principle that their laws are based on faith rather than the rule of law. In a religious context, the law is something that comes from God that a person of faith is very passionate about. When you challenge that law, you are challenging their idea of God and this is highly offensive. In non-secular governments that are ruled by law, the law is created by man so it's known to be inherently flawed. When a law is challenged it's less devastating because it is not so personal as challenging someone’s idea of God.  

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, which was 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 as 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 a civil war between 1975-1990. 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, Lebanon is the geographic home for many sacred places. Decades of experience and its prominent position in the middle east presents Lebanon as an interesting country to evaluate the successes and failures of a confessional government as a compromise between secular government and theocratic government. The Lebanon experience may provide some insight for the emerging democracies in the region.

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, Shitte 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), since 1989. So it doesn’t seem so democratic even if those leaders are elected. However, the protesters are not purporting a specific plan for an alternative, they just want 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. Second, there is tension between the competing desires of the represented ethnic and religious groups. While one theory is communitarian, meaning, each community keeps to itself, promotes internal peace because the problems occur when the ethnic groups interact with each other. Another facet to this problem is the economic and social interests of the State of Lebanon that affect all the people of Lebanon. These include economic and social issues. Finally, there is a general push for peace among Muslims and Christians. This is normal when generations have 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. Its seen as a breeding grounds for extremist activism, but has lost that distinction considering recent events over the past decade. 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, its how the faith is expressed.  

For many in the Middle East, being a Muslim or Christian is not a matter of checking a box, its an all in sort of thing. The differing ideologies in the Muslim faith have a very hard time understanding each other. Sometimes these breakdowns in communication lead to violence and genocide. It's a very odd thing when one can discriminate to the point of murder against someone of a different faith. We saw this in Bosnia and Iraq as just a couple of countries that engaged in mass killings and torture of people of other religions. This presents the question of how to work with those other people, those who don’t think like us, and this includes everyone.

In the United States, being of a different faith may have social consequences, but we haven’t seen rioting in the streets over religious intolerance. In the United States experiment, religious tolerance is a central tenet of its Constitution. It’s been historically protected throughout the years. Regardless, over the course of the United States’ great experiment, other ways of discriminating against people have been prevalent, first, it was gender, race, and now sexual orientation. The mechanism of due process in the United States allows for a deliberate vetting of these issues and they ultimately get resolved. This is a profound example of how a secular government provides internal stability. Once the country is internally stable then it can engage in international relations in a manner that is not simply pleading for help and intervention. 

This paper has surveyed the differences between secular government and non-secular government for internal stability as well as external stability and the ability to participate in international relations. Our sample countries were Lebanon compared to the United States. We concluded that a secular government is far more stable internally as our example in the United States shows. Additionally, we found that hybrid or confessional secular-non-secular hybrid governments are really short term solutions to age-old problems that will not go away until a real sustaining solution is found, our sample country was Lebanon. Finally, we concluded that internal stability breeds stability in international relations as well. When a country is engaged in civil war or power is so divided that it is hard for the country to make a singular decision, other countries will be hesitant to negotiate with that country. They will out of necessity not out of a desire to genuinely enhance international peace. Therefore, secular governments with religious tolerance improve standings in international relations.  

Works Cited

Cromartie, Michael. "Religion, Culture, and International Conflict after September 11." Center Conversations 14 (2002): 1-16.

Diab, Issa. "The Case of Lebanon: Encourage One Another to Work for Peace and Justice." International Congressional Journal 9, no. 1 (2010): 65-78.

Gaer, Felice D. "Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009." U.S. Government Printing Office. permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps20328/final%20ar2009%20with%20cover.pdf (accessed November 28, 2012).

Philpott, Daniel. "The Catholic Wave." Journal of Democracy 15, no. 2 (2004): 32-46. http://0-muse.jhu.edu.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v015/15.2philpott.html (accessed August 17, 2011).