Religious Non-State Actors and Development

Transcription

1 Religious Non-State Actors and Development

2 Human Security Murat Somer the welfare and quality of life of a state s inhabitants A. Material component B. Idealistic and legal-political component C. Subjective values about human autonomy and self expression

3 Religious non state actors May enhance A, B and C if May undermined A, B and C if they: shift resources away from secularist state organizations (A ) undercut freedoms granted by pluralistic democracies (e.g. women s rights, minority rights) (B and C ). Cause polarization (B ).

4 Non-State Actors (NSA) and Turkish Secularism Foundation of the Turkish Republic Autonomous Islamic institutions regarded as a potential threat to development Official/Orthodox Islam subsumed by the secular state The state controls as well as supports it Caliphate, Office of Şeyhülislam abolished, Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) founded Mosques are subsidized and imams salaried Article 24: it is the states duty to supervise all religious and moral education

5 Autonomous Islam faced more restriction Banning of Sufi Organizations (many went underground) Vaqfs (religious foundations) were subsumed by the state and lost their autonomy Diyanet does not recognize minority Muslim shrines such as the cemevi s of Alevi Muslims

6 Results: Turkey became one of the most developed and democratic in Muslim world (A and B ) But: Negative effect on human security through impinging upon personal freedoms (B ad C ) Turkey designated as a partially free democracy by international NGO s (B or?) Legal freedoms but not always actual freedoms and equality (B or?). For example women have equal legal rights but only ¼ of them work

7 2002- Under the AKP Material Growth European Union Reforms

8 Subjective human security under the AKP AKP government systematically favoring graduates of Imam-Hatip schools Pro-Islamic businesses and powerful religious movements flourish Volunteerism based social security promoted over state run welfare system, ceding control to the religious sphere (shift resources away from state) Privatization of formerly secular sphere institutions

9 Subjective human security under the Polarization AKP Promotion of conservative conceptions of social life Different values concerning social pluralism and secularism

10 All this improves human security for some but may decrease for others Improves some components of human security but decreases others

11 Content Analysis of Turkish Newspapers Publications give a more realistic impression than interviews where the subjects is attempting to project a positive image: Skepticism of pluralism and secular actors Negative attitudes towards religious diversity Regressive attitudes towards gay rights

12 Liberal Democracy *Slides from Somer, 2011

13 Liberal Democracy

14 Social Pluralism

15 Social Pluralism

16 Social Pluralism

17 Social Pluralism

18 Secularism

19 Secularism

20 Secularism

21 Convergence of values on political democracy But divergence on social pluralism and secularism

22 The Janus-Faced Impact AKP enhances human security: Economic growth Political stability and democratic reforms More diversity (religious NSA s) in civil society

23 The Janus-Faced Impact Cont AKP rule decreases human security: More diversity in civil society and but not necessarily acceptance of it Divergence of values on social pluralism and secularism Secondary role of women (or a different understanding of women s emancipation) Polarization as a loss of human security Loss of secular freedoms Attack on and loss of press freedom by AKP Will the rise of the headscarf pressure non-religious women to conform to good morals?

24 Tension between Secular and Religious understanding of human security. E.g. Individual freedom offends religious sensibilities Secular actors may not be opposed to religious symbols such as the headscarf as an adult decision But religious groups feel that children should be immersed in religion early