In a world marked by international violence and social injustice states have always been obliged to seek political stability and public consent throug...

In a world marked by international violence and social injustice states have always been obliged to seek political stability and public consent through the threat of the use of violence. This is the reason why they have sought to strengthen their legitimacy beyond the political sphere, and most often through the support of religion. Over the course of history the concept of the divine right of kings was one of the most commonly utilized principles legitimising political power. Only in the modern age, through the processes of industrialization, secularisation and rationalization of society, has politics progressively developed a tendency to emancipate itself from religion.
The guiding principle was the separation of religion from politics. The Gospel provides a basis for the separation of the two spheres when Jesus says: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s”. This separation leads to the affirmation of the primacy of civil law within state borders and this implies that the state should not be conceived simply as an arbiter between different conflicting organized groups and values. Its primary task is to knock down the fences which divide societies, to refuse to favour one faith over another and to promote peaceful co-existence and social solidarity among different outlooks.
Pluralism is an essential characteristic of a free society. It can be fully achieved provided that common values such as freedom and equality are widely shared. In political life, the citizenship link should prevail over every other form of loyalty. On the other hand, the state is expected to protect the free exercise of religion and to abstain from interfering with religious activities provided that they do not breach public order.
Prior to the end of the Cold War, a general tendency seemed to prevail throughout the world: the declining influence of religion on politics. This secularisation of society was conceived, according to Max Weber’s widelysupported viewpoint, as a constituent part of modernization. But now the political landscape has fundamentally changed. Religion is everywhere. President Bush asserted that the Iraqi war was inspired by God. “God is with us” he frequently says. The Islamic terrorists undertake their suicidal attacks driven by the faith that they will be rewarded in Paradise. A cartoon published in a Danish newspaper representing the Prophet with a bomb on his head in place of his turban was considered blasphemous in the Islamic world where it triggered a great number of demonstrations
with many casualties.
What then is the reason for this growing influence of religion on world politics? I believe its origins are in politics itself rather than in religion. It is the result of a political use of religion rather than a consequence of spontaneous religious fervour.
The Cold War was not simply a clash between two superpowers and two blocs. It was also a clash between two universal ideologies: democracy and communism. Since the end of Cold War, brought about by the collapse of the communist bloc, nationalism has been widely utilized both in the East and the West to replace the more universal ideologies, primarily in the East, where people no longer believe in communism, but also in the West where democracy, now deprived of its external enemy, shows its own shortcomings. Confined within national borders and unable to manage global issues, democracy has been reduced to a mere decision-making procedure.
In the Post-Cold War era two types of nationalism are emerging: ethnic nationalism and the nationalism promoted by the great powers. The former, which brought about the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, is also active in the West, as shown by the Basque, Corsican and Irish terrorism, though constrained by the EU. Another example is Québequois separatism which is contained by Canadian federal institutions. The other form of nationalism is active in the US, Russia, China and India where it functions as a necessary ingredient for strengthening domestic cohesion of those states and their affirmation at world level.
It is in this context, characterized by the revival of nationalism, that religion has entered the scene as a force subservient to nationalism. This is the contemporary expression of an old tradition: the concept of religion as an instrument of government. Germany and the Vatican supported the secession of the Catholic states, Slovenia and Croatia, from Yugoslavia. Thus, the Catholic Church, behaving as a national force, abandoned its original inspiration – for “Catholic” means universal. Bosnia was dismembered into three communities: Serbian-Orthodox, Croatian-Catholic and Islamic. The wave of so-called ethnic cleansing revived Nazi methods in the former Yugoslavia. On the other hand, in order to fight more effectively against the secessionist claim of Chechnya, an Islamic province, Russia strengthened its own Orthodox identity.
Islamic fundamentalism is a movement that preaches the return to the founding principles of a religion threatened by contamination by modern culture and modern life-styles. Since the West is the vehicle of modernization, it is represented as a menace to the principles of Islamic religion. It is in the nature of the clash of civilizations to transform the Other into a stranger and an enemy. This was the ideological root of the attack to the Twin Towers. Such Islamic fundamentalism promoted corresponding versions of religious extremism in Judaism (Israel), Christianity (US), Hinduism (India), Confucianism (China). What is troublesome is the reaction of the US: namely, the acceptance of this “clash of civilizations” game. Hence the promotion of a Christian fundamentalism, the re-emergence of obscurantist tendencies such as for example rejecting the results of scientific research like the theory of evolution. This same reaction led the neocons to identify the West specifically with Christianity – a position echoed in Europe during the debate on the European Constitution when the Pope, supported by conservative circles, claimed that the Christian roots of European civilization should be mentioned in its preamble.
But this is no way to promote dialogue, mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence among religions and cultures. Separation of religion and politics is a glory of European history. A European Federation would represent a substantial progress along the way traced by the founders of this political tradition. It would unify a group of countries once divided by national hatred, yet without
erasing their individual character. The secular aspect of the European way of life emphasizes the equality of the citizens whatever their religion may be. Only this political model is fit to receive a great Islamic country such as Turkey into the EU.
The EU shares with India the role of a laboratory where the construction of multinational communities with many languages and many religions is planned. They show how federal institutions represent a bulwark against the dominance of a single nationality or a single religion. Unity in diversity is the principle the world needs to be able to promote a culture of dialogue and peace.