Forum
Freedom of Choice in Central Asia
Chris ISTRATI, Cross-cultural Consultant, Aslan Alliance
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

Religion and politics are a volatile mix. Taken alone, each can spoil a good dinner conversation. Together they are as explosive and unstable as nitroglycerin. At diplomatic cocktail parties the toxic brew of religion and politics can be as deadly as mixing one's drinks. A false move, a wrong statement, a shaky proposition and delicate negotiations that combine religion and politics can collapse under colliding worldviews. As the world so recently witnessed, the dangerous mix of religion and politics can hijack a commercial airplane and slam it into a building, changing the world in the twinkling of an eye.

When Henry Kissinger began to practice "realpolitik" as foreign policy adviser and then as Secretary of State, he effectively stripped ideology out of global foreign policy. The ideological differences between Soviet communism and American capitalism were filtered out of any decision-making and a muscular view of power politics was applied to foreign policy making.

The naked view of power meant that arms reductions talks took highest priority during the Cold War era, followed by trade talks in more recent administrations. The bully whip of "human rights" was not a foreign policy tool favored by Mr. Kissinger as it drew too much of its firepower from an ideology that was often vague and inconsistent. Mr. Kissinger preferred the big stick of military might to overshadow the negotiating table. His diplomatic successes were built on the avoidance of ideological issues and the offer of power and wealth in exchange for peace and security.

For all its merits in the field of foreign policy, the legacy of "realpolitik" has left a cadre of political and economics experts who are uncomfortable analyzing how belief systems and ideologies factor into international relations. After all, when you believe that power and money make the world go round, what possible need is there to introduce the notion of a "deus ex machina"?

It is therefore surprising to see a new interest among international relations experts to explore the no-man's land where religion and politics share common boundaries. Foreign policy makers are waking up to the realization that religious believers can make strange bedfellows with political activists. Civil society builders trying to transition marginal post-communist societies into active global players are recognizing the role of religion in society even if they don't quite understand how to include faith into their master plans. Journalists reporting on political developments in Central Asia have also begun to research the complexities of Islamic theology in an attempt to understand the times.

THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN SOCIETY

The Islamic community has long examined the confluence of religion and politics as part of a core truth revealed in the Koran and reflected in the life of Mohammed. While the Islamic world was seeking ways to integrate faith and power, the western world began to split religion from politics during the Enlightenment, when the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, relegated faith and reason to separate spheres of reality: the spiritual and the material.

The Christian tradition of separating church and state goes back to Augustine's division of "The City of God and the City of man." Pietistic groups during the Reformation and various monastic movements in the Middle Ages also tried to purify religion from worldly ambition and corruption by rejecting the temptation of political involvement. In a very ironic sense, the western world is rediscovering the role of religion in society and the power of faith in political life through the instruction of Muslim “fundamentalists”.

The delegation of authority between the religious and political spheres goes back to the social division between the chief and the shaman in tribal cultures. The separate roles of priest and king, church and state, mitre and sceptre, ulema and caliphate were at times brought together under one body or one head, while at other times kept separate under different social contracts that spelled out the respective spheres of authority.

Religious authorities are often extensions of political powers such as in the state churches of England, Germany, Russia, and Sweden, or among the official Muslim ulema of Uzbekistan. Political power can also be used to support religion, such as in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where the state cooperates in the global expansion of the Islamic dawah, the message of Allah's final revelation through his prophet Muhammed.

In the history of the early Christian community, the relation between the state and the church alternated from state persecution of the church to state tolerance of its existence and practice. When the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine officially adopted Christianity as the state religion, theological conflicts became state politics.

In the Byzantine Empire, the Emperor appointed Greek Orthodox bishops under a regime known as Caesero-papism, while in the Holy Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Pope anointed kings and emperors. The feudal relationship between the Pope and the kings of Europe eventually disappeared in the spiritual and cultural renewal movement known as the Protestant Reformation.

The union of religious and political authority has been tested at various historical periods. The Muslim caliphate effectively invested both political and religious authority in the dynastic successors of Mohammed. King Henry VIII in his break from Rome became the Defender of the Faith of the Anglican Church as well as the sovereign monarch of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Today, the Dalai Lama combines a political and religious role as the highest avatar of Tibetan Buddhism and the leader of Tibet's government in exile.

In more recent history, parliamentary and republican political bodies, often led by religious leaders, challenged the divine right of kings. Social contracts were drawn up throughout Europe to circumscribe the separate roles of the political magistrate and the religious magisterium. The framers of the American Constitution eventually adopted the concept of separation of church and state to limit the abuses and corruption of religion in league with worldly powers. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Kemal Ataturk separated the ulema from the sultanate and laid the foundations for the modern Turkish state.

Islamic scholars have often divided on whether Islam and democracy can coexist. The need to examine this relationship more closely in Central Asia led to a spate of conferences on the subjects of "Religious Extremism in Central Asia," "Democracy and Religion," and "Islam and Human Rights."

Most of these conferences exposed the bias of the western secular view that religion and politics should be kept separate. This view conflicts with the more traditional religious belief that faith embraces all facets of life. It also contrasts with the communist philosophy, practiced in the former Soviet Union and the present Peoples Republic of China, that religion must be eradicated from all social and political life.

And therein lies the root of the problem in Central Asia and other parts of the former Soviet Union: what should be the role of religion in the formation of a new society?

Who authorizes what is traditional and sanctioned by the state, or "non-traditional" and eliminated from civil society? How should a political state relate to various religious confessions in a pluralistic society? How should the various religious confessions relate to each other in an open society? Which law should be adopted as normative and regulative for society, a secular law or a religious one: Common Law or Shar'ia Law? The relation of religion and politics extends into the very fabric of all societies, even into those that have strictly separated the two spheres of human behavior.

POST-SOVIET RECONSTRUCTION

The relation between religion and politics affects all civilizations, whether for the good or ill of society. Especially vulnerable are the newly independent, post-communist states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Their quest for direction following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has created a wave of change in almost every sphere of society. The process of "perestroika" brought about the collapse of a political and economic system already in a state of decay but did not find a new system to replace the old.

The hope that the alchemy of democracy and capitalism could bring about a new society in a new Commonwealth of Independent States brought in a flood of assorted carpetbaggers, consultants, venture capitalists, speculators and international experts. Plans and expensive projects proliferated with the aim of building new economic, political and social structures that could reshape the vast region of the former Soviet Union, including the states of Central Asia, into overnight democracies with thriving markets capable of feeding hungry masses.

Aided by international donors and creditors, a fragile democratization process did begin to unfold. At the beginning of the transition, new freedoms were tested by various social groups. Opposition political parties challenged governments that were composed of former Communist Party members. Independent media openly criticized political leaders and questioned the bureaucratic practices of an entrenched system. Entrepreneurs venturing into regional "free markets" faced competition from "Mafia" groups protected by powerful bosses and an arbitrary tax system.

Since 1991 a flood of religious groups also trailed the economists and entrepreneurs. Prophets, preachers and proselytizers invaded the region to fill the spiritual vacuum left by 70 years of official atheism. From Chechnya to Kyrgyzstan, various religious currents have swirled under unstable political winds.

Until recently, religious groups as varied as Wahhabis, Bahais, Baptists, Hare Krishnas and Jehovah Witnesses enjoyed free access to the souls of the region's populations. Many young people joined these new movements out of varied motivations. Faced with joblessness, drugs, poverty, and despair, some enlisted in these "foreign" religions eager to taste new freedoms and find new significance, others wanting employment and excitement.

While most of these religious groups sought to bring about the salvation of the individual and the transformation of society by peaceful means, some groups attempted this goal by coercion, subversion, and armed force. These shadowy groups have deep links with drug traffickers and international revolutionary groups.

Exploiting ethnic tensions and weaknesses in the social fabric, movements such as the Islamic Renaissance and the Islamic Party of Uzbekistan adopted religious language to justify nationalist goals. Using legal, democratic freedoms they advocated the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a theocratic state that restricts basic freedoms. When the law thwarted their goals they resorted to unlawful methods, such as kidnappings, robbery, and murder.

While militant Islam has received the most scrutiny, religious extremism is not restricted to Islam; nor is the fusion of religious beliefs, political aspirations, and machine guns exclusive to radical Muslims. In Myanmar, separatist Karen Christians wage guerrilla warfare against the Buddhist military junta. In Sri Lanka, a bloody civil war has raged for decades between Tamil Hindus and Singhalese Buddhists. In Northern Ireland, the feud between Catholics and Protestants has enlisted ethnic affiliations and political agendas for centuries.

Governments attempting to maintain stability and security against the threat of armed terrorists funded by the narcotics industry frequently found the need to infringe on fledgling freedoms. In some cases the need to restrict freedoms for the sake of security became opportunities to silence political opponents. President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan responded to an attempted assassination attempt in February 1999 with a wave of arrests that violated human rights.

Border closings to stop the flow of ideas, drugs, and arms also restricted freedom of movement. The arrest of newspaper editors and opposition candidates restricted freedoms of speech and the electoral process. The arrest of religious groups distributing literature in the bazaars of Osh and Jalal-abad restricted freedoms of conscience and speech.

THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Against this backdrop of political reconstruction, economic transition and social unrest in Central Asia, old questions that are new to every emerging state arise to reexamine the relation of power and authority, freedom and duty, rights and responsibility, liberty and restrictions.

Effectively, who has ultimate authority? Which power, religious or political, has priority in the social order? Who determines what is extremism and what is orthodox? Who frames the limits of religious expression? Is this an intra-confessional issue or a question for the state to decide?

The common ground between democracy and religion is the freedom of choice. The freedom to choose one's political representative and the freedom to follow one's conscience without coercion are both pillars of a free and open society. While totalitarian governments restrict the freedom to choose a leader or a way of life, controlling religious institutions also abrogate the freedom of conscience for the individual.

While the theologies of Christianity and Islam both assert respectively that the sovereignty of God and the omnipotence of Allah control the destiny of humanity, there is also a paradoxical truth that allows the individual to have a free will. Both the Bible and the Koran teach that man is responsible for obeying or disobeying God's commands, even though God is ultimately responsible for predestining or determining all things, including the fate of the individual. The paradox of determinism and choice lies at the core of the human condition.

A persistent thread in the ongoing dialogue between religion and politics is the affirmation that a society in the process of developing democratic structures and programs needs to protect the freedom of choice in the political process, in the public forum of information, ideas and markets, and in matters of conscience and faith. Freedom of choice is embedded in constitutional documents, including the US Constitution's Bill of Rights (Article 1), the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18), and the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (Article XII: Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech and Article XIII: Right to Freedom of Religion).

A social contract or covenant is needed between political, social and religious authorities to maintain the freedom of choice and to build society with harmony and order. A rule of law that respects the rights of minorities to choose their community direction while carrying out the democratic will of the majority is an ideal that western democracies aspire to and hold out as a model to the rest of the world.

ELECTION, ETHICS, AND EDUCATION

It is an axiom of western political science that a society weaves a stronger fabric when it provides a platform for political and social leaders, including religious leaders, to address social problems, such as poverty, prostitution, substance abuse, crime and family abuse. When these social problems are ignored, denied, or buried, the social fabric is weakened, leading to social instability, unrest and eventually open conflict between the "haves and have nots."

Governments that serve and protect the people, and non-governmental organizations – including religious groups that minister and care for the people – can meet on mutual ground to solve social problems. To this end western aid programs have sought to propagate NGOs as necessary social building blocks in the absence of other social welfare organizations. However, they have mostly neglected cooperation with religious groups also working towards the common weal.

In this context, it is interesting to note that Dr. Kofi Anan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, inaugurated a social issues summit at St. Peter's Cathedral in Geneva in late June, 2000, the same pulpit used by John Calvin to reform the city during the Protestant Reformation. Apparently, the United Nations, with its multiplicity of faiths and plurality of cultures acknowledges, or at least gives a token nod to the role of religion in dealing with the problems of modern society.

In short, democracy and faith have these three common social goals:

1. Freedom of choice -- the protection of inviolable basic human rights: the freedom to follow conscience without coercion and the freedom to elect one's leaders. 2. Common community ethics -- the development of concern for human rights, for matters of justice, for the establishment of rule of law rather than force, and for the welfare of the poor and the sick. 3. Public education -- the education of an electoral public sufficiently informed and with free access to information to make wise decisions to cast a vote and choose a faith.

In the sphere of religion, a free education addresses misunderstandings, stereotyping, and dangerous beliefs that result in social conflicts. Educated people capable of conducting their own quest for truth are less likely to fall prey to charlatans and false prophets. Education supports the development of a stronger society because constructive choices are made more frequently and freely. Education is also needed to inform citizens about their ethical responsibilities and democratic duties. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "You cannot be ignorant and free." The education of citizens is a cornerstone of a free democracy.

Education must be more than data storage and information accumulation. The ability to make an informed choice, to know right from wrong, to determine good from bad, to analyze a situation and make an appropriate critical evaluation for the whole, that is what makes for strong public leadership in a free and open society. In order to withstand both internal and external threats to freedoms, democratic societies must commit to free education, free speech, free faith, and the freedom to choose one's leaders.

The role of the media as a source of public information and as a means of education in a free and open society cannot be minimized. The historical record shows that newspapers came into their own as voices of political parties and political philosophies. "In the 19th century, when newspapers developed around political parties, people became educated about national politics through a partisan-driven press. Then, early in the 20th century, radio began to have a profound impact, which was soon dwarfed by the power of television." P. 60, "Bigger than TV itself," Mike McCurry, Inc., vol 22, issue 7.

The media is an important pillar in the building of society that supports the freedom of choice and informs the educational process. Journalists and the media can serve the building of a new society by reporting accurately on the social work of religious organizations and by informing fairly on the democratic process of government.

Schools, newspapers, television, radio, churches, mosques, temples, community centers, and political leaders all need to teach by example not to lie, cheat, steal, abuse, oppress or murder. With democratic freedoms come civil responsibilities. The freedom of conscience is closely linked to the freedom of speech. Both have responsibilities tied to their liberties. The freedom to believe cannot infringe on another's rights of faith. Freedom of speech cannot libel or slander or misrepresent.

With religious tolerance as a foundation for social stability, a common ethical framework can avoid the slippery slope of relativity that makes one man's truth another man's lie. A common ethical framework agreed upon by a plurality of religious confessions and social organizations and endorsed by a rule of law can bring together people of conscience to tackle the big issues facing a society. The role of the state in a democracy should be seen as preserving a level playing field for political parties and religious confessions to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Religious leaders need to be trained with a commitment to maintain the peace and order of society, but without becoming tools of a controlling state. This means that more, not fewer, educational facilities for religious instruction needed to be developed. The concept of separation of church and state working in cooperation under a divinely sanctioned social contract also needs to be part of the education for the citizens of a democracy. Religious leaders in Central Asia have often bemoaned the lack of an educated religious cadre in the country, remembering that during the Soviet regime members of religious confessions could not attend the state schools.

There is also a need for religious education that does not advocate a specific confession to be taught in schools, a curriculum that includes an overview of religious history. A cadre of journalists trained to report on religious activity with balance and an absence of bias would also benefit from religious education. Government leaders who are either private practitioners of peaceful religion or knowledgable of the positive role of religion in society would also be capable of helping religious organizations work for the common good.

PLURALITY AND SOCIAL UNITY

Every religion claims exclusive access to the truth. Not brooking competition from rival confessions, religious authorities persecute heretics, if traitors from within, and infidels if enemies from without. Ecumenicals often attempt to create points of agreement by majoring on the ethical commonalities adhered to by most major world religions, and by glossing over the core, distinctive doctrines of each religion.

While Jews and Christians do not accept Mohammed as God's last and authoritative prophet, Jews and Muslims cannot accept Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world who died for the sins of mankind, or as the incarnate Son of a Trinitarian God. Muslims and Christians on the other hand agree that their respective beliefs complete God's revelations first given to the Jews. Unlike the non-proselytizing Jews, Muslims and Christians also agree that their respective messages are of universal importance and must be broadcast to all mankind. Conflict between the evangel and the dawah is inevitable where these messages cross paths in misunderstandings or are held hostage by radicals with political agendas.

In Central Asia, religious tolerance stops at the borders with China, Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. While Islam allows for freedom of choice within its own community, and traditionally respects religious tolerance, it does not allow for conversions from Islam to another religious faith. Conversion is treason to Allah and is punishable under Shar'ia law by death, exile or ostracism from the "ummah," the community of the faithful.

The realization that freedom of faith is being stamped out in Turkmenistan, restricted in Russia, limited in Uzbekistan, and controlled in China, provides the backdrop to any discussion on religious freedom in Kyrgyzstan. The growing threat of religious extremism in the Ferghana Valley raises the stakes for developing a peaceful, tolerant society.

The need to crack down on extremists who use terror tactics must be balanced by the need to preserve freedom of faith in a free, open, democratic society. The need to amend the existing religious laws to provide teeth to the security forces combating religious extremism is balanced by the need to keep the state from exercising dictatorial control over conscience. Both the Baptist minister and the Muslim Mufti in Central Asia remember the extent to which their followers were persecuted during the Soviet regime.

The leaders of respective faiths need to come together to support freedom of religion in Kyrgyzstan. An ecumenical commission reporting directly to the President and a forum to address common concerns and to resolve conflicting differences will go a long way towards building solidarity between religious, political and media representatives rallied against an enemy of the state.

According to former Secretary-of-State Madeleine Albright on her tour of Central Asia in 2000:

"A democratic and open society will provide the best defense against extremism and terrorism, and the most hospitable environment for the transition to a prosperous modern market economy. The legacy of the Soviet era will be difficult to overcome; these transitions take time; but that should not distract anyone from this region's great potential. We all need to see beyond present problems to imagine the possibilities for the future. And at the same time, we need to remember some eternal verities. The world and technology change. But – as Ibn Sina understood – the nature of wisdom does not. It is found in knowledge, which leads to understanding, which produces tolerance, which makes a free and democratic society possible. And there is nothing a truly free and democratic society cannot do. You have started down the road to building such a society. The road is long, but the directions are clear. And the United States is prepared to walk with you along the way." (Madeleine Albright, in a speech delivered in Tashkent, Uzbekistan on April 17, 2000)

Here is the essential faith of the western world: the doctrine that democracy will create domestic stability and economic prosperity, that a strategic plan includes envisioning the future, and that the cultivation of wisdom and knowledge produces understanding, tolerance and a free society. The search for wisdom through knowledge also implies a commitment to public education in a free society.

Whether this western branch can be grafted onto an eastern root is a question for the future. The history of Central Asia shows a remarkable ability to assimilate cultures and absorb empires while still retaining enduring ethnic identities and the social patterns of nomads and settlers. The current "Great Game" over oil, strategic resources and influence is also played out against the backdrop of ideological struggles: Islam and Christianity, communism and capitalism, empire-building and ethnic separatism, dictatorship and democracy, control and choice, restriction and freedom. As if to underscore the gravity of the current conflict, warplanes fly out of airbases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan while bombs fall on Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, and the search continues for Osama bin Laden, the arch villain of religious and political synthesis.

As if to seal the spirit of cooperation between civic, political, academic, and religious leaders, the "Democracy and Religion" conference ended with a banquet. Seated around the table of tolerant plurality, the citizens of a democratic society enjoyed the fruits of harmony and peace. Dialogue is the basis of social trust, and trust is the glue that holds a society together. Like canaries in a coal mine, the freedoms of choice, encompassing free speech, free faith, free elections and free markets, sing happily when all is well with democracy. When the canaries are silent, democracy suffocates under the burden of tyranny.

The discussion on "Democracy and Religion" and “Religion and Education” needs to continue, not only to combat the threat of extremism, but also to build a stronger society in the Kyrgyz Republic. The disappointments of the Kyrgyz parliamentary elections can be redeemed by the continuing commitment to protect the freedoms of choice in Kyrgyzstan. This mountain republic can still become the model of a prosperous democracy in Central Asia, an island of choice in a sea of closing options, sham elections and the repressive rule of khans, padishahs, and sultans.