When the end of ideology was celebrated – first in the 1950’s and then, more emphatically still, in the 1990’s – no one foresaw that religion, the bane of politics in the first half of the twentieth century, would return to that role with a vengeance. Daniel Bell and Raymond Aron wrote about the end of fascist and communist ideology in the hope that we would enter an age of pragmatism in which politics would be a subject of argument and debate, not belief and total worldviews. Karl Popper’s approach to politics, one of reason and critical discourse, had come to prevail. And when, after the collapse of communism, the end of history seemed near, ideological politics was thought to have vanished forever.
But history does not end, and it is forever full of surprises. Francis Fukuyama’s End of History and Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations appeared within a mere three years of each other in the 1990’s, and a decade later the return of religion to politics is visible for all to see – and for many to suffer.
Those books are not just academic discourse, but mirror real developments. By the time the false religions of totalitarian ideologies were defeated, real religions – so it seemed – had long passed from the political scene. In some countries, formal allegiance to religious faith was symbolized by gestures and rites. Yet no one thought much about it when American presidents of different faiths swore their oath of office to God and country. In Westminster, every parliamentary sitting begins with Christian prayers presided over by Speakers who could be Christians or Jews or non-believers. Not all democracies were as strict as France in their formal secularism but all were secular: the law is made by the sovereign people and not by some superhuman being or agency.
Suddenly, however, this secular commitment is no longer so clear. Religious fundamentalists claim that the law must be anchored in the belief in a supreme being, or even be based on revelation. Christian fundamentalism in the United States has come to dominate large segments of the Republican Party. In Europe, the Vatican lobbied for acknowledgement of God in the preamble to the proposed European Constitutional Treaty. Israel has long avoided drafting a constitution, because its secular citizens fear that orthodox Jews would impose their values on them.
Likewise, the sharia , Islamic law, entered political life in its least enlightened version in hopeful democracies like Nigeria, to say nothing of Iran. Islamic fundamentalism – Islamism – has spread to all countries in which there are significant numbers of Muslims.
Why has religion returned to secular and democratic politics?
Project Syndicate is returning to Climate Week NYC with an even more expansive program. Join us live on September 22 as we welcome speakers from around the world at our studio in Manhattan to address critical dimensions of the climate debate.
Register Now
The main reason is probably that the enlightened countries of the world have become unsure of their values, even of the Enlightenment itself. A moral relativism has spread, leading many to accept the taboos of all religious groups in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism. Cartoons of Mohammed are not published, and Mozart’s opera Idomeneo is not performed in order to avoid offending religious sensitivities; and when, in the end, the publication and the performance take place, they become a demonstration almost intended to offend. One can understand that enlightened believers in Islam (of whom there are many) find it upsetting that the world in which they want to live is in fact frail and vulnerable.
The return of religion to politics – and to public life in general – is a serious challenge to the rule of democratically enacted law and the civil liberties that go with it. The response by enlightened communities is therefore important. Perhaps it is right that the use of religious symbols has become the subject of public debate, though I think that wearing headscarves and even veils is as much a part of individual freedom as is the wearing of Jewish skullcaps and Christian crosses.
But there are far more important issues – above all, freedom of speech, including the freedom to say and write things that annoy, even upset, many. In the interest of enlightened discourse, the limits of free speech should be drawn as widely as possible. In the free world, people are not forced to read a newspaper or listen to a speech that they do not like, and they can oppose without fear what is said by those in positions of authority.
Today’s counter-Enlightenment fashion can easily get out of hand. Those who are committed to liberty must learn to appreciate and defend it now, lest they someday have to fight to get it back.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
With less than two months to go until the US presidential election, the candidates’ opposing worldviews, objectives, and priorities – and their implications for international relations, the economy, and democracy – have come into sharper focus. While it is impossible to know exactly what a leader will do once in office, the contours of both a Donald Trump and a Kamala Harris presidency are remarkably well defined.
Since the start of the Olympic Summer Games in Paris, Emmanuel Macron has reclaimed the initiative and confronted a political situation that is in many ways unprecedented for a French president. Not only has the center held, but the country may have a return to political stability in its sights.
reflects on the French president's efforts to maintain control after a painful election season.
When the end of ideology was celebrated – first in the 1950’s and then, more emphatically still, in the 1990’s – no one foresaw that religion, the bane of politics in the first half of the twentieth century, would return to that role with a vengeance. Daniel Bell and Raymond Aron wrote about the end of fascist and communist ideology in the hope that we would enter an age of pragmatism in which politics would be a subject of argument and debate, not belief and total worldviews. Karl Popper’s approach to politics, one of reason and critical discourse, had come to prevail. And when, after the collapse of communism, the end of history seemed near, ideological politics was thought to have vanished forever.
But history does not end, and it is forever full of surprises. Francis Fukuyama’s End of History and Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations appeared within a mere three years of each other in the 1990’s, and a decade later the return of religion to politics is visible for all to see – and for many to suffer.
Those books are not just academic discourse, but mirror real developments. By the time the false religions of totalitarian ideologies were defeated, real religions – so it seemed – had long passed from the political scene. In some countries, formal allegiance to religious faith was symbolized by gestures and rites. Yet no one thought much about it when American presidents of different faiths swore their oath of office to God and country. In Westminster, every parliamentary sitting begins with Christian prayers presided over by Speakers who could be Christians or Jews or non-believers. Not all democracies were as strict as France in their formal secularism but all were secular: the law is made by the sovereign people and not by some superhuman being or agency.
Suddenly, however, this secular commitment is no longer so clear. Religious fundamentalists claim that the law must be anchored in the belief in a supreme being, or even be based on revelation. Christian fundamentalism in the United States has come to dominate large segments of the Republican Party. In Europe, the Vatican lobbied for acknowledgement of God in the preamble to the proposed European Constitutional Treaty. Israel has long avoided drafting a constitution, because its secular citizens fear that orthodox Jews would impose their values on them.
Likewise, the sharia , Islamic law, entered political life in its least enlightened version in hopeful democracies like Nigeria, to say nothing of Iran. Islamic fundamentalism – Islamism – has spread to all countries in which there are significant numbers of Muslims.
Why has religion returned to secular and democratic politics?
PS Events: Climate Week NYC 2024
Project Syndicate is returning to Climate Week NYC with an even more expansive program. Join us live on September 22 as we welcome speakers from around the world at our studio in Manhattan to address critical dimensions of the climate debate.
Register Now
The main reason is probably that the enlightened countries of the world have become unsure of their values, even of the Enlightenment itself. A moral relativism has spread, leading many to accept the taboos of all religious groups in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism. Cartoons of Mohammed are not published, and Mozart’s opera Idomeneo is not performed in order to avoid offending religious sensitivities; and when, in the end, the publication and the performance take place, they become a demonstration almost intended to offend. One can understand that enlightened believers in Islam (of whom there are many) find it upsetting that the world in which they want to live is in fact frail and vulnerable.
The return of religion to politics – and to public life in general – is a serious challenge to the rule of democratically enacted law and the civil liberties that go with it. The response by enlightened communities is therefore important. Perhaps it is right that the use of religious symbols has become the subject of public debate, though I think that wearing headscarves and even veils is as much a part of individual freedom as is the wearing of Jewish skullcaps and Christian crosses.
But there are far more important issues – above all, freedom of speech, including the freedom to say and write things that annoy, even upset, many. In the interest of enlightened discourse, the limits of free speech should be drawn as widely as possible. In the free world, people are not forced to read a newspaper or listen to a speech that they do not like, and they can oppose without fear what is said by those in positions of authority.
Today’s counter-Enlightenment fashion can easily get out of hand. Those who are committed to liberty must learn to appreciate and defend it now, lest they someday have to fight to get it back.