Religion, Culture, Democracy

As I have mentioned previously, one important positive aspect of living and interning in Washington, DC is the easy access to a variety of presentations, seminars, and workshops on a plethora of issues stemming from the human rights field. A couple of weeks ago, for example, I attended a panel discussion on the role of religion and culture in the development of democracy in post-conflict areas. The subject of discussion fits perfectly the theme of the African Conflicts class I am currently enrolled in and I thought it is a wonderful idea to attend. The panel consisted of James Patton, Marc Gopin, and Mohammed Abu-Nimer and all three panelists offered valuable insight on the topic and made some great observations and conclusions. 

First, religion and culture are very important and must be taken in consideration before any attempts at assisting a transition to a democratic state in a post-conflict area, whether that area is in Southeast Asia, Africa, or South America. Religion and culture must not be ignored or dismissed as inferior if the ultimate goal is to reduce the suffering in the conflict-ridden area.

However, a human rights activist must be careful not to assume that established religious institutions in a particular area will necessarily support the transition to democracy. As Patton emphasized, there are inherent contradictions between the ideas of religion and democracy. He stated that while democracy is about agency, religion is often about the lack of agency in people and the need to rely on an outside power for support. As an example, he highlighted that often the Catholic Church has supported dictatorial regimes in South America. Similarly, Gopin pointed out that historically, religious institutions were associated with torture and violence and that this was one of the main reasons for the creation of the democratic state. 

Next, Abu-Nimer discussed the role of peacebuilding and warned against the danger of wanting to introduce what Westerners consider democratic values into cultures in which most of the beliefs contradict these values. Instead of helping an already ravaged area, this is a sure way to cause more damage and exacerbate the problem. I agree with his conclusion as I know from personal experience that arrogance and imposing beliefs on completely different cultures often bring more misery. 

There were a couple of particularly interesting ideas mentioned and discussed that I am going to have to think about and perhaps expand into individual posts in the future. The first idea was that it is important for us to recognize that democracy does not necessarily equal no violence. Peacebuilding and humanitarian efforts should be clear and realistic about the desired outcomes of their efforts and be prepared to adapt as needed. 

The second idea was that democracy itself is an ideology, similar to any religion, set of beliefs, or way of life. As Gopin emphasized, religion and secularism are not the problem; it is the abuse of those two by people for their own selfish aspirations that often leads to suffering. 

Definitely a lot of interesting ideas to think about and consider. Especially by those interested in peacebuilding, humanitarian aid, and development. 

-      Krasi

Torture Part Deux

As I mentioned in a previous post, spring quarter 2012 is almost over (almost because I still have one last paper to polish and submit...) and I am quite ready for summer. Before that happens, however, I think I should add some reflections from the seminar on torture I completed. I can honestly say that I wish I had not seen some of the pictures and films presented during the seminar, but I understand why it is important that we do see them and acknowledge them.

 

Several years ago I watched a documentary on the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster of 1986. The purpose of the documentary was to reveal a step by step description of what exactly went wrong. What made an impression on me was the fact that the disaster happened because everything went wrong. It was not simply a human error, it was not just one person’s error, it was not just one safety device failing. The breakdown of all the elements in the chain allowed the disaster to happen. Similarly, the practice of torture occurs not because one person has a particular taste for violence or because there is a failure in the system. Everyone must participate, either as a torturer, as a sanctioner, or as a bystander. 

As the Chilean novelist Ariel Dorfman points out, the type of regime has no relevance to the use of torture; rather, as long as those in charge are able to present a worthy goal of some ultimate freedom and security, the act of torture will be accepted and condoned by the majority. How the act is presented to the world highly relies on the point of view. Depending on whose side a person is on, torture can either be a great violation of human dignity or the ultimate expression of patriotism in the pursuit of security to the homeland. 

Orwell portrays the danger of such distinctions and in his work Animal Farm stresses that considering the behavior one engages in, the label of that behavior is irrelevant to the outside observer. If all nations, regardless of how democratic they are, choose to employ torture to ensure security, the line between us and them is erased and if a true outsider were to look through a hypothetical window, he would not be able to distinguish between enemy and friends because without the knowledge of who is “us” and who is “them”, all humans would look the same to him as far as the practice of torture is concerned. 

The fact that there is no difference between the so-called enemies and ourselves when it comes to disrespecting the law, each other, and humanity in general should be known to most people. However, we are used to pointing fingers at others and finding rationalizations for actions that would easily be regarded as despicable if committed by the enemy. A cultural shift is indeed in order if we are to stop ignoring what goes on in our own neighborhood before we start searching for criminals in the town across the river (or ocean). Until we realize that language is a means of controlling one’s thoughts and ideas, it will be hard to acknowledge that there is no difference between a dictatorial “enemy” torturing our combatants and our combatants “harshly interrogating” the enemy under the sanction of democracy. 

 - Krasi