|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 3 February 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Litmus Test of secularism and democracy by Lynn Ockersz The "Islamic veil" issue currently raising a storm of protest in France and sections of the Muslim world, goes to the very heart of the relationship between secularism and democracy.
Accordingly, the issue is of immense relevance to South Asia and the rest of the Third World where the democratic experiment is struggling to take root. What is at issue in this controversy - it should be noted - is not religious freedom, which is fully guaranteed by the French State, but the need to 'preserve the secular identity of State institutions and bodies which are sustained by public finances. As has been clearly underscored by the French authorities, the French constitution envisions the clear separation between "Church and State." While religious institutions are free to function in France, these cannot be funded by the State in view of the "separation wall" between the Church and the State, as is the case with the US. Accordingly, public schools in France, if they are to function on the basis of the principle of "neutrality", which in turn is founded on the secular principle of keeping the Church and state separate, would need to dissociate themselves from "conspicuous" religious symbols, such as the Islamic headscarf and the Cross, which is the identifying symbol of Christianity. Such a dispensation - it should be emphasized - doesn't prevent the functioning of privately - funded denominational schools, dedicated to the dissemination and practising of a particular religion. However, all public schools would need to be religiously neutral since there is no link between the State and religion. Accordingly, it would be incorrect to interpret the French State's proposed legislation on the use of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools as discriminatory. On the contrary, such laws would enable the - French State to deal even-handedly and impartially with France's numerous religious communities, if the foundation principle of secularism is firmly adhered to. Such issues are of considerable importance to South Asia where "secular democracies" are woefully few. With the exception of India, whose brand of secularism envisages equality among religions and which by implication, obliges the State to deal even-handedly with India's religious communities, it is open to question whether any other "secular democracies" have taken root in South Asia. In fact, the question needs to be raised whether a democracy without secular foundations could be conceptualized and practised because preference on the part of a State for a particular religious community or culture could lead to the deferential treatment of the latter by the State at the cost of the others, leading to disaffection on the part of those communities which do not come in for equal treatment by governments. In these latter instances, therefore, we would have a close link between the State and select religions, which undermines the time - tested democratic ideal of a "separation wall" between the State and religion. A good measure of the strife currently experienced by Sri Lanka is traceable to the failure to delink the State from religion. A question which needs answering is how Sri Lanka's political system could be categorised in view of the constitutional non-separation of the State from religion. Although the constitutional separation of State and religion doesn't necessarily guarantee equality of treatment of communities in a "secular democracy", it provides space for unfettered political activism for the advancing of rights of the disaffected. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
