Government Systems: Religious Governments

This paper takes an in-depth look at religion in government. Specifically, the essay discusses the various sociological elements of organized religion and how they can permeate governmental institutions. It also illustrates some examples of nations in which organized religion plays an active if not integrated role in government. By casting a light on this form of leadership, the reader gleans a better understanding of the significant role religion plays in the twenty-first century.

Keywords Ayatollah; Divinity; Secular; Shia; Theocracy

Sociology > Government Systems > Government Systems: Religious Governments

Overview

In 1948, Arab forces, including fighters from five sovereign nations as well as Palestinian guerillas, combined to try to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Israel. They were defeated, but regrouped shortly thereafter to return to the fray. Jewish and Muslim combatants each lay claim to Israel based on the traditional claims of their religious ideologies. According to the Bible and the Qur'an, Jews and Muslims, respectively, were promised by God ownership of the land. Indeed, the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict has proven to be an international relations conundrum for virtually every nation.

The mixture of religion and government has long been a common formula. In the modern world, however, the great majority of nations place a higher priority on governance and policymaking than religious doctrine. Then again, faith and organized religion have always been important to political leaders, just as they have been in every society and culture. And there are examples, even in the twenty-first century, of political systems in which religious tradition plays a much more active role than is typically the case.

That political systems and religion are often intertwined (whether intentionally or subconsciously) is but a part of a larger picture. After all, most world religions are not designed with political leadership in mind — they defer to a higher power or powers. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity all challenge a person not to command others but rather to take individual responsibility for his or her own behavior according to the revealed truths of their respective spiritual tradition. It is no surprise, therefore, that individuals content with their own faiths look outward to share their moral and ethical ideals with others within the society and within the government institutions that they develop.

The question thus arises: To what degree do certain systems incorporate their religious beliefs into government, and what sorts of societies embrace this behavior? In some cases, faith becomes such a powerful social player that it is incorporated into every aspect of life. Islamic societies, for example, often view the Qur'an in the same light that Americans view the Constitution. Other societies might see a need for a moral compass to guide them away from war, poverty, or near-anarchy and toward unification.

Mainstream sociologists have held the seemingly logical assumption that economic success and religious zeal are linked — poorer nations are likely to embrace religion more than wealthy countries. However, empirical data suggests that while there are correlations to be drawn between economics and religious development, the link is weaker than one might assume (Snoep, 2008).

In light of this weakness, it becomes evident that there are other factors at work. Among them are recovery from political instability, social and economic stratification, and disenfranchisement. These factors are not issues addressed directly in most faiths — rather, they are social problems that allow leaders to call upon religious doctrine for moral guidance. In the case of heavily religious states, that doctrine might be modified to serve as a blueprint for political leadership.

This paper takes an in-depth look at religion in government. Specifically, the essay discusses the various sociological elements of organized religion and how they can permeate governmental institutions. It also illustrates some examples of nations in which organized religion plays an active if not integrated role in government. By casting a light on this form of leadership, the reader will glean a better understanding of the significance religion plays in the twenty-first century.

Faith & Leadership

The study of religion and government as a combination is a relatively new discipline. Religion has, throughout human history, played a significant role not only in individuals' personal faiths — it has been a major contributor to every culture, every social institution, and every society. There are obvious examples — the Ten Commandments, for example, have instilled Judeo-Christian values into American culture. The familiar phrases "In God We Trust" and "One Nation, Under God" are also reflective of Americans' fundamental religious values.

In the United States,faith has also played an increasingly integral part not only of political candidates' campaigns but of people's involvement in such activities as well. In fact, studies indicate that there is a correlation between religious belief and political participation (Driskell, Embry, & Lyon, 2008).

Whether a society embraces religion as applicable in every facet of its infrastructure, however, remains the subject of debate. Indeed, a recent ten-nation study asked respondents about their views of religion and how it impacts their daily lives. Relevant to this discussion is the question of whether religion (or at least religious values) should play a role in government. Ironically, the one country that makes a constitutional point of separating church and state, the United States, appeared to be the nation in which religion most comprehensively permeates political activity. In fact, nearly 40 percent of Americans believe that religious leaders should try to influence political decision-making.

In contrast, only 12 percent of the heavily Catholic nation of France felt similarly. Of Mexicans, who are the closest in the study among those cultures that embrace their faith, only 20 percent felt their religious leaders should be lobbying government. Remarkably, 80 percent of Italians say that their faith is important to them, but only about 30 percent of them believe that religion has a place in politics (Lester, 2005).

Nevertheless, each of the countries captured in the aforementioned study maintains a secular, or nonreligious, political infrastructure. While there is no doubt that religious faith and values are successful in infiltrating the political decision-making process, they remain separate nonetheless. The same cannot be said for other systems. Theocracies, for example, are political systems in which the authority to govern is said to come from divine sources. True leadership in these systems comes from individuals who are priests, sheikhs, imams, or other figures. Theirs is divine power, derived from the supernatural (or special links to a higher power).

For the purposes of discussion, secular governments (in their purest, ideal form) and theocracies may be said to rest at two opposite ends of a spectrum. Just as the study above reveals, however, many systems may not have visible links between religious leadership and government in the manner of a theocracy, but the two do not remain entirely separated, either. As stated earlier, religion and faith permeate nearly every developed and developing national government in one form or another. Hence, amid the two polar extremes of theocracy and secular government is a middle area in which the two mix and interact but are not connected.

The following sections look at examples of each of these three types of systems: secular governments, theocracies, and "hybrid" governments, providing examples from the modern era.

Japan: From Theocracy to Secular Government

The Meiji Era

In the latter nineteenth century, the largely secular Tokugawa era in Japanese history gave way to an industrialized Meiji era in which Japan was introduced to the rest of the modern world. The breakdown of the shogunate, however, meant that Japan needed to be unified behind Emperor Meiji. In order to do so, the emperor underscored what was believed to be his heritage as a direct descendant of Amaterasu, a relatively obscure goddess of a religion that had until Meiji had been buried in Japanese history: Shinto.

By highlighting his connection to the newly revitalized Shinto faith, Meiji elevated Shinto to the highest levels of both Japanese government and culture. The polytheistic tradition had become the official state religion of Japan, with Meiji as its highest representative. Of course, Meiji did create a constitution that, as was the case in the constitutions of the Western world, did allow for freedom of religion. However, he had also claimed his lineage to Amaterasu, and through him, the Japanese people were therefore also linked to the divine. By virtue of their connection to the supernatural world, the Japanese "race" and the statewide practice of Shinto were considered superior to all other cultures.

Shinto as a state religion persisted as both a faith and a unifying factor for future emperors. Most significantly, Emperor Hirohito, who would challenge the United States in the Pacific War during World War II, would use Shinto again as a rallying cry for Japanese citizens to assert their perceived superiority over the rest of humanity. Hirohito was, therefore, asserting his godlike status as emperor of the top of the human food chain. Japan may have been set up as a Western-style government, but it was clearly taking on a theocratic air.

Postwar Secularism

After Hirohito's defeat at the end of World War II, the Japanese government's Shinto institutions were dismantled and, most significantly, Hirohito disavowed his divinity . Japanese society let go of its dedication to Shinto as an institution. Today, Shinto still exists in Japan, but only as one of several world religions in practice in that country (Shinto and Buddhism are among the most prevalent, but other faiths, including Christianity and Islam, continue under protections from the postwar Japanese constitution).

Interestingly, any reference to Shinto by governmental leaders tends to send some sort of shockwave across the East Asian region. Currently, the only memorial for Japanese soldiers who gave their lives in the Pacific War is the Yasukuni Shrine, a Shinto venue that for many remains a symbol of Hirohito's state religion (and which includes many convicted World War II war criminals, such as General Hideki Tojo). Whenever a Japanese prime minister visits the shrine, the victims of Japanese aggression and brutality in China, Korea, and Southeast Asia have been quick to speak out against such an official homage to Yasukuni (the translation of which, ironically, is "peaceful nation"). A movement continues to create a secular memorial to Japan's war dead, but this nonreligious effort has not yet achieved a full hearing amid the ongoing controversy.

Given the regional wounds inflicted during the Pacific War (which for many have yet to fully heal), Japan must continue to demonstrate an aversion to its warlike ways of the mid-twentieth century. One such way is to reject many of the institutions that contributed to Japan's rise to power, including state Shinto. It remains clear that Japan will seek to remain a secular government, for a fall back toward a system with heavy religious influence would be met with certain international skepticism.

Changing the Post-Soviet Society

If a secular government is by nature tolerant of all religions, the Soviet Union would be its polar opposite. Indeed, the Soviet regime at its apex kept a tight clamp and persecutory policy on most religions as a matter of professed national security. Only twice in their more than seven decades of control did Russian Communist leaders relax their repressive grip on religion. The first was during World War II, when Joseph Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to become more active in an effort to stimulate unity among the Soviet citizenry. The second occurrence was during the Soviet Union’s autumn years, as President Mikhail Gorbachev promised to the people (and those watching in the international community) that he would allow greater freedoms to practice religion (God and glasnost, 1988).

When the Soviet Union collapsed, high hopes existed that the new regime would embrace the freedom of religion. For some time, such was the case, as increasing numbers of religions surfaced in the post-Soviet era. However, in recent years, the government of the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin has, in the interest of state control, returned to a more Soviet style of religious repression, with one exception: the Russian Orthodox Church operates with official favor.

The Russian Orthodox Church: Increasing Secularism

The Orthodox Church has seen something of a renaissance in the post-Soviet era. Many experts believe its resurgence in terms of popular participation is due in large part to the morality and ethics contained in the traditions, a necessary set of factors, especially given the corrupt elements that have entered Russian society and its economy since 1991 (Mulders, 2008). Putin has seized upon this fact, giving high government-sponsored priority to the Orthodox Church over all other faiths. In fact, in the recent elections in that country, Putin has used the Orthodox Church as a major platform from which he could gather support and encourage greater participation in an election whose outcome had been largely preordained (Shchedrov, 2007).

Russia has in many ways come a long way in a relatively short time. Basic rights and free market infrastructures have taken the country a number of steps away from Soviet-style authoritarianism. One of the more glaring examples of the changes occurring under Vladimir Putin, however, is the installation of the Russian Orthodox Church as a key contributor to society and the government alike. Time will tell whether the Russian government will continue to remain for the most part a secular system or if the Church will play an even greater role in policymaking.

Iran: The World's Largest Theocracy

In the case of the world's largest theocracy, the faith of the people who would become the nation of Iran came long before government. In fact, the Shia people of what was then called Persia accepted the Sunni monarchy as their ruler, acknowledging that political institutions were generally imperfect anyway. As long as the ruling Sunnis did nothing to impinge on Shia traditions, the Shias of Persia accepted the rule of their religious rivals (Shuster, 2007).

The era of "quietism" came to an end when the Shah came to power in the early 1920s. Attempting to create a secular government, Shah Reza Pahlavi also alienated the Shia majority by not allowing Islam a place at the monarchy's table. Instability and brutality would mar the leadership of Pahlavi and his successor and son, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as an Islamic backlash was forming in what was by this time known as Iran.

In 1979, Shia leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was in exile, led an Islamic revolution to overthrow the Shah. When Pahlavi was himself sent into exile, Khomeini installed himself as Iran's supreme religious leader.

When the Iranian Revolution occurred and the Ayatollah became the leader of the Shia community and the nation, more than the simple overthrow of an unpopular ruler occurred. Khomeini changed the nation's constitution in a way that made him the most powerful individual in Iran. His modifications would have far-reaching implications. In the twenty-first century, the Iranian president may wield a large amount of power and prestige. However, the Supreme Leader maintains veto power over the president (Moveni & Shannon, 2006).

Theocracies, which combine the border-defined administration of national government with the non-territorial ideals of a major religion, are almost paradoxical in terms of international order. It is indeed unusual that a state, whose borders are well-defined and whose internal interests are paramount for national government, may be led by an institution concerned with global interest and (in the case of Islam and Christianity) proselytism.

The enormous power wielded by the Ayatollah as the "supreme leader" of Iran demonstrates the impact of such a situation. In late 2007, a US-brokered meeting took place to again try to address the Arab-Israeli conflict. Designed to forge real progress and, where necessary, push compromise, the summit was received in lukewarm fashion by most participants, in part because of the actions of Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Khameini, using the month of Ramadan as a backdrop, called upon all Muslim nations to boycott the meeting due to the fact that, he said, "The result of all conferences held in the name of peace so far have been to the detriment of the Palestinian nation" (Erlanger, 2007).

The sheer size of Iran and its heavy dependence on the rule of Islamic law presents a policy conundrum for non-Muslim and secular governments in establishing international relations in the Middle East. The Iranian theocratic approach has in essence added a political agenda to an international faith (one that is the fastest-growing religion in the world). While the peaceful teachings of Muhammad may be employed in the daily lives of Iran's Muslim citizens, the combination of anti-American rhetoric and discord with the Middle East's major states (particularly Israel) also means that the nations of the West may continue to find it extremely difficult to develop and maintain strong relations with this increasingly isolated theocracy.

Conclusion

In the late 1980s, the US Supreme Court heard a case in which an Alabama school district was allowed to hold voluntary prayers in public schools. The Court disagreed, saying that the law violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects Americans' freedom of religion. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, succinctly stated the ideals contained in the Constitution: "The government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion."

Of course, the ideals set forth in a nation's constitution and the practical manners in which such tenets are played out in real life are often different situations. Arguably, nowhere is this fact more true than in the case of religion in government. Religion, after all, is a part of most members of society long before they enter politics, providing them guidance on morals, ethics, and interpersonal relations. Such information is ingrained in people, many of whom carry it with them into government operations. Creating a purely secular government is therefore extremely difficult — if religion plays a major role in a society, that culture will likely assimilate it into government.

This article has provided examples of a number of political systems in which religion has had varying degrees of influence in government operations. In Japan, the government was as close to being a secular government as any before the emperor, in the interest of national unity, elevated Shinto to a national, government-sponsored institution prior to and during World War II. Since the end of the war, Japan has had to atone for its war crimes, and the slightest appearance of denial or (at worst) return to a militaristic government can create waves of vocal disapproval from regional players.

Russia was also close to being a secular government during the years of the Soviet Union, repressing all forms of vocal religious rhetoric. However, when the Soviet Union disbanded, so too did restrictions on religious practices. Still, when Vladimir Putin came to power, he facilitated a return to the repression of most religions, save one. The Russian Orthodox Church has been touted as an institution that upholds the principles and moral attitudes of Russian society, and as such, Russia’s leaders assert, must remain an important (and state-sponsored) faith for that nation.

In Iran, evolution toward or away from a secular government is a moot point. Since the Shah's overthrow in 1979, Iran has been a theocracy, and although successive Iranian presidents have gained international attention with their anti-American rhetoric and posturing on the development of nuclear power, the ultimate power is in the hands of the country's supreme religious leader.

While Western societies in particular strive to keep faith and government apart, the fact that religion plays such an important (and often central) role in nearly every culture makes that barrier difficult to maintain. How it operates within a given political system is a measure of the power faith maintains within that society.

Terms & Concepts

Ayatollah: Supreme religious leader of Iran.

Divinity: Direct connection to God or other supernatural power or entity.

Secular: Government operating free of religious influence which allows freedom of religion for citizens.

Shia: One of two major sects of Islam.

Theocracy: Government dominated by religious leadership.

Bibliography

Background note: Japan. (2007, July). Background Notes on Countries of the World: Japan, 1–10. Retrieved May 8, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26074734&site=ehost-live

Driskell, R., Embry, E., & Lyon, L. (2008). Faith and politics: The influence of religious beliefs on political participation. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 219–314. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=31849027&site=bsi-live

Ghatak, S., & Abel, A. (2013). Power/faith: Governmentality, religion, and post-secular societies. International Journal of Politics, Culture & Society, 26, 217–235. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89547575

God and glasnost: Freedom of religion in Soviet Union. (1988, May 27). National Review, 40, 17. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12292892

Lester, W. (2005, June 7). Poll: 61 [percent] in US say politics, religion shouldn't mix. Boston Globe. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/poll%5F61%5Fin%5Fus%5Fsay%5Fpolitics%5Freligion%5Fshouldnt%5Fmix/

March, A. F. (2013). Genealogies of sovereignty in Islamic political theology. Social Research, 80, 293–320. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87966895

Morady, F. (2011). Who rules Iran? The June 2009 election and political turmoil. Capital & Class, 35, 39–61. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60980438

Moveni, A., & Shannon, E. (2006). Power in the shadows. Time, 168, 32–33. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21325713&site=ehost-live

Mulders, J. (2008). The debate on religion and secularization in Russia today. Religion, State and Society, 36, 5–20. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28552219&site=ehost-live

Papkova, I. (2011). Russian Orthodox concordat? Church and state under Medvedev. Nationalities Papers, 39, 667–683. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65522752

Rubin, A. (2013). The status of religion in emergent political regimes: Lessons from Turkey and Israel. Nations & Nationalism, 19, 493–512. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88263485

Shchedrov, O. (2007, November 19). Putin promises support to Russian Orthodox Church. Reuters News Service. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL196077120071119

Shinto and nationalism. (2009). BBC. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from BBC Online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/nationalism%5F1.shtml.

Shuster, M. (2007, February 13). Shia rise amid century of Mideast turmoil. NPR Online. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371280.

Snoep, L. (2008). Religiousness and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 207–211. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31722568&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Blake, M. (2007). Tolerance and theocracy. Journal of International Affairs, 61, 1–17. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=28057533&site=ehost-live

Brown, N. J. (2012). Contention in religion and state in postrevolutionary Egypt. Social Research, 79, 531–550. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=79109986

Hirschl, R. (2008). The theocratic challenge to constitution drafting in post-conflict states. William and Mary Law Review, 49, 1179–1212. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31855150&site=ehost-live

Houston, D. J., Freeman, P. K., & Feldman, D. L. (2008). How naked is the public square? Religion, public service and implications for public administration. Public Administration Review, 68, 428–444. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=31389869&site=ehost-live

Kirmanj, S. (2008). Islam, politics and government. Totalitarian Movements and Political Regions, 9, 43–59. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31314304&site=ehost-live