The Challenge of Inclusive Citizenship, Oliver McTernan 3rd June 2016
The following article was written by Oliver McTernan - Director of Forward Thinking - for a conference organised by the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO); the Hikmah Center for Dialogue and Cooperation and the Center for the Study of Islam and the Middle East in the city of Erbil. The theme of the conference was Inclusive Citizenship.There is an irony in the fact that we meeting exactly 100 years since the Sykes-Picot agreement which led to the Cairo conference that would draw the national boundaries of the modern -day states in the region.The Sykes -Picot agreement is a prime example of a double standard diplomacy : it was driven solely by French/ British interests, whilst ignoring promises to the Arab Hashemite leadership to create a united Greater Arabia, and to the international Jewish lobby to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine.It demonstrates the predictable consequences when interests compete values - the consequences from which you in the region still suffer today.The perceived interests of Britain and France overshadowed the ethnic, civic, cultural and religious rights of the peoples of the region.Today , 100 years on, we face a prolonged period of protracted conflict, a growing refugee crisis, and unprecedented economic challengesAt a World Economic Forum meeting last week it was stated that-100 million jobs will be needed in the region over the next five years- 400 million children in educationOne does not need to be an economist to understand these figures represent a growing gap between expectation and the reality to deliver; the risk of exclusion seems unavoidable.The problem we face is the fact that there is no international consensus at the level of the political leadership on how to manage these complexities, and there seems to be no sense of urgency in addressing them.The political decision makers seem to opt for the simple analysis which chooses to see the turmoil in the region solely through sectarian prism . This provides them with a convenient excuse to ignore the urgent need to act. These are ancient intractable problems that would risk too much political capital if they were to engage in trying to resolve them.The proxy struggles for regional control that are being played out as millions are displaced, thousands have lost their lives and millions more have been excluded, are misguidedly believed to be the manageable consequences of their inaction, and therefore containable within the region.Given the complexities the region is facing, it takes courage to look forward and to reflect on the urgent need for an inclusive citizenship approach to governance if the region is to address these growing problems.Inclusive citizenship is a pre-requisite for 'sustainable ' stability which is rooted in a recognition of the need for a shared space in which each and every individual has the opportunity to discover their God given human and spiritual potential. Without sustainable stability there will not be the investment and economic that are essential for peace.But what does inclusive citizenship mean in practice ? Part of an answer lies in a story told by Peter Maurer, the ICRC president:-Education for the children-Jobs of the adults- Security for the communitiesThe provision of education, work and security are important to the concept of inclusive citizenship but such a description is still incomplete: it is not just what the state provides for the individual but in return what should the individual give to the state.- John F Kennedy's inarguable speech comes to mind; ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for our country.Inclusive citizenship is about working together to promote the common good.Sharing a space that allows us to live and work in partnership with others. Politically this means:Inclusive citizenship is a governing policy that focuses on legal equality for each citizen.It aims to give all citizens a strong feeling that they are a part of the overall society.It requires laws that provide non-segregated access to power and state institutions to all citizens, regardless of their race, gender, religious affiliation and socio-economic status.It affirms the value and dignity of each and every individual.It guarantees people's freedom and dignity.In short it helps create a society in which diversity is seen not as a threat but as an asset.To achieve this requires that the state institutions operate by a rule of law that gives equal recognition to all its citizens and function without prejudice, favour or political interference . The institutions of the state should protect the rights of the individual from abuse of power by the state, and hold those in power accountable for any infringement of people's rights.All are guaranteed equality before the law and equality of opportunity regardless of their origins. Laws and policies recognize diversity by race, cultural heritage, ethnicity, religion, ancestry and place of origin and guarantee to all men and women complete freedom of conscience, of thought, belief, opinion expression, association and peaceful assembly. Their individual rights are fully protected and they need not fear group pressures.This bring us to the heart of our discussion and reflections.The concept of Inclusive citizenship can in fact challenge some of our own core beliefs be these secular of religious.It is often argued, especially by secularists, that after years of religio-political conflict, progress and pluralism took root in Europe only when the Treaty of Westphalia removed religion from the international agenda, and the Enlightenment drew a clear division between the realms of religious and political authority. Religion, secularists argue, excludes by its very nature.In contrast, many Muslim scholars in particular often argue that progress and pluralism advanced furthest in many Muslim societies when religion and politics were deeply integrated, and tyranny and injustice arose largely as a result of the sidelining and subsequent exploitation of religion for social and political purposes.There is truth in both these positions, however the relationship between religion, politics, intolerance, community strife and conflict, is much more complex.The promotion of democracy as expressed in its highest form in policies promoting inclusive citizenship , power sharing and economic growth will undoubtedly help to lessen the likelihood of ethnic or sectarian conflict in a multi-ethnic, religiously diverse society. Yet these factors in themselves are insufficient to guarantee against the kind of violence that is motivated solely by religious conviction, which justifies killing in the name of a higher cause.History shows that religion has always demonstrated a propensity for violence, regardless of the social and political conditions of its devotees. And this I believe we have to face up to avoid past episodes of attempts to exclude and even eliminate the other recurring.The eagerness of religious leaders to repudiate and disclaim atrocities committed by their co-religionists is no doubt prompted by an understandable fear that violence linked to religion portrays a distorted image of their faith.The scapegoating of the perpetrators, by labelling them as political criminals or misguided fanatics, has become a common mechanism used by leaders of all faiths to protect what they believe to be the purity and integrity of their religion.The denial that there is a problem, be it conscious or unconscious, is in itself part of the problem. It allows religious leaders to circumvent the fact that all the main faith traditions have a violent and bloody record, which needs to be acknowledged and addressed to avoid the risk of repetition.Today’s faith-identity linked violent activists have numerous exemplars within their own faith traditions that provide the kind of religious sanction they need to justify their use of violence.Reactions that either over exaggerate or underplay the role of religion in conflict fail to do justice to the complexity of faith-associated violence.While claims that we are witnessing a rejection of modernity and globalisation, or the pursuit of a kind of ‘apocalyptic nihilism’, are partial truths that fail to address the core of the problem, which lies within how these militants perceive their religion and, in particular, how they understand the process of revelation that lies behind their sacred texts.Whatever their particular religious beliefs and customs, today’s faith-inspired violent activists hold in common the belief that their scriptural or foundational texts were dictated verbatim by a divine authority, and as such are beyond interpretation.The word as it is written must be obeyed. The fact that they are always selective in their choice of texts and tend to focus on passages that underscore their exclusive claim to truth and superiority over others, whilst ignoring passages that stress the universal nature of divine love and compassion, seems not to perturb themA historical overview of the world’s mainstream religious traditions highlights how, without exception, each faith community—when under threat of extinction or given the opportunity to expand—has interpreted its fundamental teachings to accommodate the changing circumstances, sanctioning the use of violence to protect and secure its own sectarian interests.In each faith tradition, one can find sufficient ambiguity in its founding texts and stories to justify killing for the glory of God. Each tradition has also its heroes who saw themselves as acting on divine authority when they plotted the destruction of those whom they perceived to be enemies of God.Today’s religious extremists can find their rationale for inflicting terror in the name of their god in the ambivalence towards violence that is be found in each faith tradition.Given that religion can be a causal factor in conflict, the question we need to explore is: can religion play the reverse role and help to mediate, manage and even promote pluralism?The starting point, for me, is to acknowledge that theological differences rooted in firmly held dogmas are often irreconcilable.On one level, inter-faith dialogue that fails to openly acknowledge these fundamental differences can be as much part of the problem as the solution. We have to learn to coexist with the cracks and not be tempted to paper over them.To learn to live with our differences and not see the other as a threat or competitor calls for a real shift in mindset, a profound change in the understanding of ourselves and those who are different.We need to learn to think differently about the other and to actively promote a climate that allows for real interaction and the development of a genuine respect, despite our differences in belief and practice.John Stuart Mill’s argument that diversity should be nurtured and not merely endured, on the grounds of it leading to truth and human progress,[1] appears to have been overshadowed by the climate of theological particularism (the belief that one group has exclusive possession of truth, knowledge and goodness that is universally applicable), which still shapes the outlook of many of today’s religious leaders. Moving forwardSome would claim that religion can promote peace and coexistence in so far as it promotes tolerance of the other. The word ‘tolerance’ for many people today defines a positive attitude towards diversity, calling for respect and acceptance of those who think and act differently from oneself.The Latin roots of the word, meaning to endure or put up with the objectionable, indicate that tolerance, as it was originally defined, had more negative overtones.Far from embracing diversity and pluralism, Aquinas and others saw the willingness to permit or concede the practice of a religion they judged to be false as the lesser of two evils—since to act otherwise could possibly involve a greater evil.Even Locke endorsed ‘toleration’ only because he considered the ‘consequences of intolerance are a greater evil than the evil that is tolerated’.The original concept of tolerance prevails today, especially in religious circles. The 2003 edition of the New Catholic Encyclopaedia distinguishes between ‘personal’ tolerance (‘permitting others to hold and to put into practice views that diverge from one’s own’), which it endorses, and ‘doctrinal’ tolerance (‘permitting error to spread unopposed’), which it judges to be ‘reprehensible’.Even though with its negative connotations, the traditional concept of tolerance, which allows for would-be warring communities to coexist side by side without violence, should not be undervalued.The achievement of ‘mere coexistence’, as it is sometimes disparagingly referred to, is no mean feat, especially in communities that have been marred by inter-ethnic or inter-religious strife.The real threat to human existence presented by the face of intolerance today underscores the urgent need for religious communities in particular to re-evaluate their own attitudes towards diversity and pluralism.The French Catholic existentialist philosopher Gabriel Marcel believed that far from embattling people with negative attitudes towards others, a genuine religious experience or conviction mandates a person to be pro-active in defending the right of others to believe differently.He maintained that the ‘intense conviction’ a religious person experiences, which is so much part of who he or she is, should enable that person to empathise with another’s convictions, which are different but equally intense. This ability to identify or empathise should lead believers to move beyond that state of passive acceptance usually referred to as tolerance.[2] The right to be differentMarrakesh Declaration on the Rights of Religious Minorities in Predominantly Muslim Majority Communities , is primarily based on the Charter of Medina, which it sees as “the best suited primary basis for the institution of citizenship " and argues that “the United Nations Charter and related documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), are in harmony with the Charter of Medina.”A friend and Muslim scholar, who is at Trinity Hall Cambridge University, Sheikh Michael Mumisa, argues that for him, the most important lesson modern Muslims should learn from the Charter of Medina "is not its contents, but the processes that produced such contents. "He writes : "Although the Charter of Medina makes references to God, it is a product of deliberations, consultation and consensus between the various communities of Medina, not of divine revelation. In that sense it is a purely secular document. It did not fall from heaven like the tablets of Moses as mentioned in the Qur’an and the Bible, nor were the contents of the Charter revealed to Muhammad through Gabriel. Thus, the real general message (kulliyyat) of the Charter of Medina is that modern Muslims should be able to develop their own constitutional laws through deliberation, consultation and other democratic processes without the need to invoke divine revelation."The Marrakesh declaration claims that according to their reading of Islamic texts, Islam makes no distinction between the life and property of a non-Muslim and that of a Muslim.Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad famously said:“Whoever harms a non-Muslim citizen, I shall bear testimony against him on behalf of that citizen in front of God on the day of judgement?”Sheikh Mumisa argues that the challenge facing Muslim scholars and leaders today is not to present a “favourable image” of Islam to “outsiders” and the media, but to avoid " alienating young and inquisitive Muslim men and women who feel that their Islamic scholars are failing to engage directly with the primary texts and sources of Islam".To uphold and actively defend the right of others to make truth claims different from our own and act upon them, provided they are not detrimental to the rights and well-being of others, would be an important first step in taking people beyond ‘the sectarian milieu’ in which their own convictions have been formed.Robert Putnam judged education to be the key to counterbalancing the drift towards intolerance, which he found in American communities that were more religious in their make-up.I would agree that education could help to dispel the myths that allow others to be looked upon as outcasts or ‘demons’, but it is equally true that indoctrination, in the form of religious dogmatism based on absolute claims, can reinforce separatism and an intolerance of what is judged to be false.Respect for others and their conscientious beliefs and opinions is the framework for dialogue that allows for an honest exchange of conflicting ideas. High on the agenda of such exchanges should be a willingness to test truth claims that authorise a sense of exclusiveness or superiority over others.Equally high on that agenda should be a willingness to consider the reordering of the hierarchy or canon of beliefs that determine the faith and practice of each religious tradition. The affirmation of human life as a sacred experience or gift should take priority over what name we give to God or how we define our understanding of the divine.For the first time in our history, human beings have it within their power to extinguish the whole of life, and, in the process, cause grotesque disfiguration to the face of the globe. This awesome fact places a particular responsibility on those religious traditions that regard the whole of creation as a sacred gift to be cherished, and who believe that humans will be held accountable for their stewardship of the earth.Now is undoubtedly a defining moment in human history, which calls for an exceptional and imaginative response from religious and secular leaders and communitiesWhether they will be capable of responding to that challenge depends on the quality of religious and secular leadership within the diverse traditions. The top-down approach is not sufficient: religious leaders need to have a depth of knowledge and spiritual maturity to engage their own faith communities at every level, in order to challenge the sectarian mindset that sees the other as less worthy of respect and therefore dispensable.