Religion, peace and politics have always been closely tied. Admittedly, the Dark Ages can be regarded as the brightest example of the period when religion was the most potent stimulus in making peace or rather war. Of course, the contemporary world has changed significantly as the society has become more secular.
Nonetheless, religion is still an important part of political life of countries. Numerous conflicts suggest that people are still ready to start a war trying to defend their religious beliefs and traditions. Importantly, religion also shapes ways people employ to reach their goals. It is possible to consider conflicts in such countries as South Africa, Egypt and Burma to understand the correlation between religion, politics and peace in the contemporary world.
In the first place, it is important to note that religion has often contributed to certain division of citizens within countries. Thus, religion contributed greatly to the development of Apartheid in South Africa (Botman 244). The debate on segregation started in the Dutch Reformed Church in the 19th century. Notably, local people were converted into Christianity and Christian churches were built. Soon, however, local people were prevented from coming to some churches.
A bright example of the process is the way Khoi-Khoi people were deprived of their right to practice Christianity with white people. Khoi-Khoi people invited white people to join their church, but some white congregants addressed church officials to hold separate celebrations (Botman 244).
The Synod considered the matter and it was declared that “it was desirable and according to the Holly Scripture” that white people could attend churches different from the ones attended by the locals (Botman 244). This contributed greatly to the division within the society.
Another illustration of the process of division is Egyptian society. Historically, the society has been divided in two major groups, Muslims and Orthodox Christians. There have always been conflicts between the two groups.
Nonetheless, in the middle of the twentieth century, Abdel Nasser strived for creation of a secular society and this led to decrease in conflicts between religious groups (Hibbard 86). Multiethnic society divided into two major religious groups learnt to live in peace.
However, in the 1970 the political situation changed and a new force came in power. Anwar Sadat employed mechanisms to “promote a Saudi-inspired salafist (or fundamentalist) Islam in Egyptian public life” (Hibbard 86). This led to activation of fundamentalist Islamic groups such as Muslim Brotherhood.
Tension between the groups also increased as Orthodox Christians were afraid of possible violent acts and restriction of their freedoms. The present Egyptian society is still torn into two camps where Orthodox Christians have to defend their right to practice their religion and remain equal with the rest of the citizens.
They are afraid of becoming an inferior class of citizens pursued by the larger group of Muslims. In other words, they are afraid of another form of Apartheid which took place in South Africa. Therefore, it is obvious that religion can shape (in this case, divide) the society, which can lead to numerous conflicts and strive for violent changes.
Hence, it is possible to note that religion is still one of the reasons of conflicts worldwide. Religion is also an integral part of political regime in some countries. The Egyptian case is one of the brightest examples. Fundamentalist Muslim groups strive for a Muslim society where all people share Islamic values.
Admittedly, the most fundamentalist militants also believe that other religions are wrongful and cannot exist in Egypt (Hibbard 92). Therefore, some militants attack Orthodox Christians and destroy their property. This increases tension between the two groups.
As has been mentioned above, religious beliefs have shaped the political regime in Egypt. For instance, in 1980, The Egyptian constitution was amended to make Islamic Law “the principal (or primary) source of legislation” (qtd. in Hibbard 93). Since then, Egypt has witnessed Islamization of all spheres of public life.
Remarkably, Sadat relied on the Islamic student groups and the Muslim Brotherhood to seize power. Sadat also supported development of these groups and similar organizations. Nevertheless, these groups have caused a lot of problems to the political regime as these groups have been responsible for numerous violent acts which negatively affect popularity of those in power.
One of the most recent attacks took place in 2010 when several Muslim men killed seven people and wounded some people after celebrations services on the Orthodox Christmas Eve. This led to other conflicts and violence in the streets. It is apparent that even though the changes started in the 1970s, people are still unwilling to abandon their father’s religious beliefs.
More so, focus on religion contributes to imbalance in political life, which, in its turn, affects economic sphere and wellbeing of all Egyptians. Of course, economic constraints make people to strive for changes in the country. The Egyptian government is unable to break this vicious circle. Thus, there is a strong correlation between religious beliefs and political as well as public sphere.
It is also necessary to note that religion does not only shape the development of societies as it can also affect political struggle. The case of Burma is a good example of the impact of religion on people’s struggle. In the 1980s, people’s life became intolerable as harsh economic crisis led to unprecedented rate of poverty.
According to religious beliefs, people should give food to monks, which is a “primary form of merit-making in Theravada Buddhist practice” (Fink 355). Irresponsible policies and economic measures of the government contributed to the development of severe crisis. People did not have food for themselves. They did not have food to give to monks, and, in other words, to live in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Thus, monks decided to start demonstrations to make officials aware of the intolerable conditions of people. Importantly, monks did not want to make others involved in the demonstrations as they were afraid of possible negative consequences for people. At that, monks could not pose threats to people or cause any harm. Interestingly, religion was also used as a tool as monks refused to take food from those in power or military people who used force to disperse demonstrators.
In 2007, demonstrations started again due to financial constraints the country faced. The primary force of the opponents of the regime was the 88 Generation Students’ Group. Again, monks participated in marches and demonstrations. Importantly, religious beliefs sparked the movement as those in power used force and a lot of monks were badly injured. This led to people’s dissatisfaction and even anger as physical assault of monks is one “one of the greatest sins” in Buddhism (Fink 355). Lots of people joined marches and demonstrations.
It is also important to note that actions of demonstrators were quite organized and peaceful which deprived the officials of opportunity to use force. Notably, different countries supported peaceful marches and tried to make the government take into account protestors’ demands. Therefore, it is possible to trace a global trend as many countries strive for peaceful changes in societies. Obviously, the vast majority of countries condemn violence and societies try to implement the change employing peaceful measures.
Clearly, religion, politics and peace are closely connected in the twenty-first century. People are still eager to defend their right to preserve their religious beliefs and practices.
In some countries, religion is an integral part of political and social life. Thus, there are several Islamic countries where Islamic law is incorporated in the constitution. This does not necessarily lead to tension and violent acts if the population of the country is homogeneous (at least, in terms of religion). However, when there are several religious groups in the society, these groups often have conflicts.
Recent conflicts can suggest that a society constituted by different religious groups and peace are incompatible. Importantly, the world is globalized and countries will have more and more newcomers. It is likely that there will be no homogeneous societies any more. Those newcomers are likely to pertain to different religious groups. Nonetheless, there are lots of examples of peaceful coexistence of different ethnical and religious groups.
For instance, Egypt of the 1950s was a country constituted by several religious and ethnic groups. Thus, one of the best ways to ensure peace within a country is to divide secular and spiritual spheres. Thus, political sphere should be secular as a few countries are now homogenous in terms of religion and ethnicity.
Therefore, all groups should have equal rights to practice their religion. This will also ensure that all citizens will have equal civil rights irrespective of their religious beliefs. Admittedly, people cannot be divided into certain classes according to their religious beliefs or ethnicity. Any unfair division will result in violent acts and unrest.
Though, it is necessary to note that religion can also have a positive impact on political struggle. The vast majority of religions strive for peaceful solutions for any conflicts. Thus, peaceful demonstrations in Burma can be a good example how to struggle for civil rights exploiting peaceful tools only.
Admittedly, citizens have to remind groups in power that the latter are chosen to contribute to the development of the country and should address citizens’ needs. However, it is inappropriate to use force and strive for violent changes in the society as this leads to destruction and numerous negative consequences.
In conclusion, it is possible to note that the cases of South Africa, Egypt and Burma provide numerous important lessons to learn. These are lessons on the correlation between religion, politics and peace. These cases reveal hazards and opportunities for the contemporary societies.
These lessons help people understand that political sphere should remain secular in multicultural and multiethnic societies of the contemporary world. At the same time, political struggle can be based on religious values of peace, cooperation and respect. This will enable people to contribute to positive and peaceful changes in the society.
Works Cited
Botman, H. Russel. “Truth and Reconciliation: The South Africa Case.” Religion and Peacebuilding. Ed. Harold Coward and Gordon S. Smith. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2004. 243-261. Print.
Fink, Christina. “The Moment of the Monks: Burma, 2007.” Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-Violent Action from Gandhi to the Present. Ed. Sir Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. 354-370. Print.
Hibbard, Scott W. “Egypt and the Legacy of Sectarianism.” Between Terror and Tolerance: Religious Leaders, Conflict, and Peacemaking. Ed. Timothy D. Sisk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011. 85-104. Print.