Democracy: Exploring Fundamentalistic Nature in the Demotratic Culture

This research paper offers a critical analysis on developing countries who hold fundamentalist religious beliefs and how that impacts their ability to be a democratic state. By exploring real life examples of this taking place and furthermore looking at previous instances we see the validity of this study. This paper takes a critical look at countries who are letting go/let go of fundamentalist views through the process of modernization or globalization and how much this impacted their development of democracy. A direct comparison of religion and involvement with the government is necessary to understand how much it impacts laws, and citizens. A separation of church and state is suggested to model democracy, an analysis here is done to see power balances and impacts of religion in developing countries under this instance and how much that correlates with their democracy or current government. A study of whether one religion is more in favour of democracy than another is also conducted in this study. Through careful analysis and extensive research this paper will model how in different cases during different time periods all over the world the idea that religious beliefs and practices of a ‘fundamentalist’ nature might be in strong opposition to the development of a democratic culture in developing countries is an accurate observation.

Introduction

The question whether religion is for or against democracy is something many social scientists for many years have struggled to define. When we think of a person that has religious beliefs of a very fundamental nature we tend to associate that with them being old-fashioned or irrational. Many anthropologists as well as sociologists throughout history have argued that letting go of fundamental beliefs was key for democracy to occur in a state. Through looking at particular developing countries and if a large reason for their failure to develop a democracy is due to their fundamentalist core religious beliefs we tend to see a pattern leading us to believe this is true. Nevertheless when comparing developed countries and their conformity to democracy with developing or underdeveloped countries we see a vast difference in secularism as well as the desire for it by the citizens. It is very apparent that when we analyze a country's timeline and when it adapted a democracy or democratic government of sorts, it usually occurs during a time of modernization.

More generally modern day democracies such as Canada or Germany for example became democratic the moment the citizens wanted it, the moment of uniformity of a country’s people letting go of fundamentally prone religious beliefs. Beliefs that leaders and governments should be led by religious law, or that certain things must be a certain way due to God’s will is a direct opposition to the development of democracy. Under a democracy you chose to be fundamentally religious, however your individual belief does not impact the democracy, because in a democracy you have freedom of religion, thought and expression. The purpose of this research being conducted is to study the developing world and how they struggle to achieve democracy. Therefore it is clear that countries who are developing and struggling to develop a democracy and society have a popular fundamentalist religious belief within the government and the people being governed.

Historical Perspectives

The world has come a long way from monarchy governments where kings were appointed by the church to democratic states. Looking at Canada for example, it became a democracy in 1867. During this time Canada became a separate state from its colonizer Great Britain and gained sovereignty. However it was not until early nineties Canada’s economy and common-wealth resembled the characteristics of a developed country. Here we see that Canada was able to become a democracy before it was considered a fully developed country which historically is one of the only cases in the world. Canada through modernization and colonization adopted am obligatory parliamentary government, the same one as Britain. The difference between Canada and other colonies that to this day have failed to modernize and adopt democracies is similarity in culture and belief between Great Britain and Canada versus countries like America and Puerto Rico.

The Latin American experience shows how a historical timeline of many states failing to achieve democracy, even today in 2019, less than half of the citizens favour democracy. During the late 1970s, seventeen out of the twenty Latin American nations were ruled by dictators. Twenty years later, eighteen had successfully replaced the iron fist autocracy with functioning democracies. A new sense of possibility among liberal politicians began to take root (Arana, 2019). Here we see that after decades of trying to achieve functioning democracies to this day many of these countries do not wish to see one, mainly related to their fundamentalist beliefs. When a country’s citizens do not desire a democracy we see corrupted democracies that try to shadow successful ones, but due to the public not corresponding it leads to corruption. Any country that is developed has a successful democracy, any country that is not developed does not have a true democracy, simple as that.

In Latin America, religious fundamentalism, was a threat to the development of democracy. Latin America had been thoroughly Catholic for centuries. In response, many Catholic priests and politicians declared war on secularism claiming it would brainwash people to be immoral (Kirkpatrick, 2018). Since the vast population was of catholic belief, citizens feared the idea of living in an immoral or unjust state. The idea that religion was the form of all morality and rule of life was why these countries did not want a democracy. The way the people saw it was their church telling them that democracy is a form of evil uniformity with the west, which must be fought off. Many countries that were being told to become socialist and modernize were causing a stronger opposition from fundamentalist religious citizens who failed to believe that government and religion could ever or should ever be separate entities.

Particular Religions and Democracy

One thing many developing countries have in common is their fundamentalist religious nature, one thing they do not all share is the religion they follow. Many philosophers and politicians throughout history have argued for certain religions being a threat to the development of democracy while other religions being a guide for democracy. Auguste Comte, a french philosopher argued that in order for a country to fully develop it needs to believe in rationality and positivism, which is the idea that only scientific truth is the real truth. He believed in order to achieve an organized government and developed society the citizens needed to move on from believing things happened due to a higher power, but instead to scientific reasons which can be proved with positivity (1842). Other philosophers however argued that certain religions were better for democracy than others. Samuel P. Huntington wrote a book called The Third Wave (1991) where he talked about a wave of democratization where more than 60 countries throughout Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa under went some form of democratic transitions post Cold War era. He highlighted the crucial role played in this wave of democratic development by the Catholic Church. The general hypothesis he formulated and argued through the book was the correlation between the spread of Christianity and the development of democracy (p. 72).

The crucial argument supporting his argument is the case of South Korea where the transition to democracy occurred in 1987 and was preceded by the 'transition to Christianity' of a quarter of its population, mostly young people, being newcomers to the emerging urban middle class. They claimed that contrary to passive Buddhism, Christianity offered them a more modern model and structure for changing economic and social conditions (Marody, 1997). In India and Japan, on the other hand, the traditional Hindu and Shinto cultures did not prevent the development of democratic institutions and in fact may have encouraged it. Similarly we see almost a snowball effect where in 1990 Eastern Europe experienced a large democratic revert moving away from previous autocracies and communist dictatorships. Many theorists argue these countries always had the capacity to be democratic due to their Christian majority, but were stalled by the Soviet reign. A French author by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on democracy in America that Catholics "constitute the most republican and the most democratic class of citizens" (1835) whereas other social scientists argued back that democracy requires a political belief system that encourages competition among ideas and truths, while the Catholic church claims that there is only one truth (Lipset, 1940).

Some sociologists and anthropologists argued that Islam particularly was of opposition to democracy. Huntington claimed "Islamic concepts of politics differ from and contradict the premises of democratic politics" (p. 111). Contrary to Huntingotns argument we also see very successfully democratic developed Islamic countries such as Turkey and Senegal and many more. One important thing to note is that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, president at the time Turkey developed full democracy explicitly rejected Islamic concepts of society and politics and attempted to create a secular, modern, Western nation-state. (p.128). Therefore, we see historically there have been many different takes on certain religions and their correlation with democracy. It is clear that depending on the era, the corresponding culture of the people and the culture of the individuals conducting the studies, has a very close impact on their findings. Some sociologists argued religion as a whole is of direct opposition to democracy while others argued certain religions were better for the implementation of democracy. However one consensus we can draw from these findings is that a large majority of philosophers would agree on one thing; a democracy does not need religious influence and can operate better without it.

Modern Democracies

One crucial part of understanding religion and its impact on democracy is to dissect current successful democracies and analyze the steps they took to achieve it. One thing that should not be confused during this study is that although democracy implies secularism and separation of church, it does not promote atheism to the citizens of the country. On the contrary, a democracy promotes the freedom to carry any religious beliefs you wish, but to separate it from the law and governing sector. In America religion according to statistics retains more influence and public support than in any European democracy (except for Ireland). This being said, America remains extremely democratic and able to keep separate church and state. Yet even in the United States, the influence of religion is less pervasive than it was in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Riechley, 1986). Here we see through America’s development the shift of the citizens within the country and their reliance on religion for rule and law. We know America was always a very Christian state that pushed Christianity as the moral compass for society. However as America developed and its population rose we saw a rapid decline in government reliance on religious sectors and actors for public appeal and compassion. America is significant because it became the first successful democracy in the world in 1835 and served as a model for other to achieve democracy.

One problem with religion in democracy is the divisions it creates in countries like America or Canada which encourage individualist beliefs and multiculturalism. In order for America to reach democracy back in the 1830s it had to limit its Christian agenda because it was creating oppression for those citizens outside of the Christian church, which could have led to them being viewed as non-governed individuals with no identity (Gannon, 1981). To this day America has that prominent "God bless America" ideology, but the separation of church and state in the U.S., mandated by its Constitution, is as enforced as anywhere in the world. The moment America showed that religion and government have absolutely no reason to be interrelated is the moment it became a democracy. Many other countries modeled after America, by modernizing and letting go of their religious fundamentalist nature to develop a successful democracy. Another example is Germany which today is a very strong and organized democracy, but less than 80 years ago was under a facist dictatorship. The interesting thing about Germany a former monarchy was that it had many attempts of becoming democratic, but failed. Some historians blame the failure of democracy on individuals. Certain presidents doubted democracy and focused on restoring power as a monarchy whereas extremists such as Hitler hated democracy.

Citizens played an important role as well, them holding onto their praise and pride of Kaiser led them to desire a religious monarchy over a democracy. Even after Germany’s loss in WWI when a large portion of citizens desired a democracy to be implemented hoping it would achieve better quality of life and a better economy, yet only twenty years later we witnessed Nazi Germany. One large influence of this again was the non-conformity of citizens and the want for secularism. Following WWII German citizens were left desperate and wanting stability in their country, one way they believed they would never experience a reign of terror like Hitler’s again was to become a democratic state. With the help of the USA, Germany developed a democracy. All developed European, Asian, and African states have one moment in their history where the push and need for democracy came directly from the citizens. Through this study it has become apparent that almost all countries which are currently developing or underdeveloped and are not democratic are that way because they choose to be. We have seen many cases of failed democracies by colonies who were incapable of imitating the American model and that is simply because their culture and religion limit them from adopting a democratic mentality.

Efforts of Achieving Democracy

Many states to this day struggle to become democratic, or true democracies. Of course religious beliefs of a fundamentalist manner are not the only reason for this, however it is very significant. Countries that modeled after the west to develop will argue secularism was very important to the process, meanwhile countries who wish to be developed to, but lack the means argue that it can be done without the separation of church and state. That in itself is a large setback for a development of a democracy, because it is almost impossible for some of these countries to conform to how the Americans did it (modernized). A developing country like Jordan for example will probably never become fully democratic, or at least in our lifetime and it is because the citizens do not desire a democracy. Jordan has a constitutional monarchy and no matter which faith you belong to in Jordan (Orthodox Christian or Muslim) the citizens do not see a reason for political reform claiming the seperation of religion from their government and laws would be unnecessary. There are still many autocracies in our modern day world, and even dictatorships.

Certain African countries simply do not have the means to be democratic because citizens do not view the government as something significant in their lives. When your purpose in life is to survive, you do not come in contact with the law nor care for it, therefore many African countries do not feel a push from their citizens to become democratic. People who reside in countries like Malawi and Niger care more about using their religion as a way to humble themselves and make coping with life easier versus pushing for a democracy, when they simply do not care for a government. With respect to the more narrowly political culture of a society, it seems reasonable to expect that the prevalence of some values and beliefs will be more conducive to the emergence of democracy than others. A political culture that values highly hierarchical relationships and a strong deference to authority usually has a smaller desire for democracy than one that does not (Huntington, p.183)

Many colonies of America and Great Britain to this day carry remnants of the economic and social destruction the wave of modernization by their colonizers left them with. Their strong dependance and reliance on their colonizers to this day is why they will never be able to not rely on the west for stability and support. Becoming a true democratic state for some of these colonies particularly Latin ones is not something that interests their citizens too much. The problem with these colonies is that they already tried to be modern, but could not conform. If they attempt sovereignty they will be so poor without their colonizers that a democracy would be irrational. Therefore many developing countries who are not democratic, simply do not wish to be and treasure their faith above their government.

Conclusion

To conclude this study we must interpret all the topics and research we covered. One thing we know is that several countries within the last two centuries have proven that religious beliefs and practices of a ‘fundamentalist’ nature are in strong opposition to the development of a democratic culture in developing countries. Looking at countries we know are democratic now and tracing back to see when and how they developed their democratic culture was key for this study.