The recent assassination of Gauri Lankesh, a prominent secular Indian journalist, and the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya population in Myanmar, or the periodic attacks on Hindu minorities in Bangladesh make it prudent to infer one simple truth: This is a difficult time to talk or write about secularism.
The rise of the political right in the form of “communal nationalism” across both matured and volatile democracies have shaken the core secular institutions across the world’s political space. Not only there is low tolerance for allowing a debate on the instrumental importance of secularism to create a cohesive society, but some have also used this newfound political momentum of the “religious right” to question its importance.
Others have simply rejected its relevance. Collectively, there is an implicit attitude that secularism should be viewed as a particular policy instrument -- such as low tax or high tax -- and it can be withered away if the dominant political groups with a mandate to govern prefers such ideological position.
Yet, this dominant approach is misguided, as it fails to understand the core notion of democracy, since it has viewed secularism as a policy option but not as an integral fabric with which the very flag of democracy is woven. It is no coincidence that almost all political thinkers -- Voltaire, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine -- who have advanced our modern understanding of democracy have also simultaneously advocated the integral role of secularism within a democratic polity.
Simply argued, secularism demands the separation of the public institution from religious ones -- famously coined as “the separation of the church and state.” Moreover, it necessitates that those who have earned the mandate to govern should not allow democratic space to turn into the “tyranny of majority,” by imposing the religious belief of the majority (or for that matter any particular belief) on the minority.
Further, it is exactly in this avenue where common misconceptions associated with democracy emerge, when the political or religious right-wing groups question that if majoritarian decision-making rules -- such a referendum or parliamentary voting -- result in the adoption of religious laws in statecraft, then shouldn’t such outcome be viewed democratic?
The advocates of secularism must try to make a simple case that without secularism, a polity can, at best, develop a majoritarian political order, and, at worst, a communal autocracy
The short answer to the noted question is: No. This is simply because laws that are argued to have originated from a divine source are “eternal in construction,” and once adopted, these laws cannot be changed (at least if one aspires to hold on to a strict dogmatic position). Hence, if such laws become the core element of a state craft, then what is the point of having a representative political system? How will public representative debate or discard laws if we operate under the premise that these laws are of divine origin?
The very notion of democracy dictates that each successive generation will directly or through elected representatives formulate and alter laws and policies that best reflect the interest of the majority without violating the inalienable rights of the minority. Such arrangements are simply not possible if laws or policies are embraced because of their perceived divine origin.
In other words, democracies are expected to harness adaptive efficiency, where laws that are viewed by a particular generation as being harmful towards the broader progress of the society are discarded, which is only possible if matters of the state are viewed and examined separately from the dictum of religious bodies.
Consequently, secularism is a building block on which democratic institutions are created and nurtured. Secularism’s ultimate objective is about creating a society where people of different faiths not only co-exist, but also engage and admire each other. It’s a society where people of different faith can pursue a life that they have reason to value.
Yet, after reflecting on the contemporary political scenarios of India, Egypt, and Turkey (or many countries in Europe), I have begun to accept that the struggle for creating a secular Bangladesh will always remain a perpetual endeavour.
At no point in time should we harness the complacency to think that a long-exposure to a secular government automatically creates a secular society. We should also never give into the instinct that secularism can only thrive within an urban-educated class. Since, if we think of secularism in such terms, it is tantamount to thinking that people living within the rural-setting has no appreciation of tolerance and religious harmony.
It is, therefore, our task to ensure that ordinary people understand the social and political importance of secularism by perpetually making the case that if we abandon secularism, we are not only abandoning the very spirit of democracy, but the very idea that we need a society where there is equal treatment and opportunities for all -- irrespective of their religious faith.
Dominant right-wing political groups across all societies have tried to advocate a baseless association between secularism and atheism: A position that greatly benefitted the religious fanatics.
Thus, the advocates of secularism must try to make a simple case that without secularism, a polity can, at best, develop a majoritarian political order, and, at worst, a communal autocracy -- but not a democracy. But the path towards such discourse and engagement is not easy.
Then again, the task of creating a reason-based tolerant society was never straightforward in human history.
Ashikur Rahman is Senior Economist, Policy Research Institute (PRI).