TY - JOUR
T1 - Permissive constitutions, democracy, and religious freedom in India, Indonesia, Israel, and Turkey
AU - Lerner, Hanna
N1 - Funding Information: I would like to thank Andrew Arato, Asli Bali, Jean Cohen, Amaney Jamal, Mirjam Künkler, Bajeera McCorkle, Faina Milman-Sivan, Jan-Werner Müller, Elizabeth Shakman-Hurd, Shylashri Shankar, Murat Somer, Tine Stein, Gila Stopler, and Keith Whittington for helpful comments and invaluable suggestions and conversations. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at the Luce series on Religion, Democracy and Conflict at Princeton University, and at the conference on Constitutional Revolutions and Counter Revolutions at the New School. I am grateful to the participants for helpful discussions. I am also indebted to the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies and to the Luce Project on Migration, Participation, and Democratic Governance in the U.S., Europe, and the Muslim World at Princeton University for providing me with a generous fellowship to conduct this study.
PY - 2013/10
Y1 - 2013/10
N2 - The article addresses the question of what role formal constitutions play in mitigating intense conflicts over the religious character of the state. In contrast to common views in constitutional and political scholarship, it demonstrates that the ideal of liberal constitutionalism is not compatible with the political reality and types of conflicts that characterize religiously divided societies. Analyzing four processes of constitution drafting in which issues of religious law and religious identity were at the heart of the debate - India, Indonesia, Israel, and Turkey - it argues that under deep disagreement over the state's religious character, the drafters adopt either a permissive or a restrictive constitutional approach. While the former implies strategies of constitutional ambiguity, ambivalence, and avoidance in order to allow the political system greater flexibility in future decision making on religion-state relations, the latter approach uses repressive constitutional constraints designed to limit the range of possibilities available to future decision makers. The article further explores the long-term consequences of the two approaches and argues that (1) permissive constitutional arrangements, more than restrictive arrangements, are likely to promote the democratic functioning of future governments; and that (2) permissive constitutional arrangements may facilitate greater freedom of religion, but they are also likely to lead to greater restrictions on freedom from religion, compared with restrictive constitutions.
AB - The article addresses the question of what role formal constitutions play in mitigating intense conflicts over the religious character of the state. In contrast to common views in constitutional and political scholarship, it demonstrates that the ideal of liberal constitutionalism is not compatible with the political reality and types of conflicts that characterize religiously divided societies. Analyzing four processes of constitution drafting in which issues of religious law and religious identity were at the heart of the debate - India, Indonesia, Israel, and Turkey - it argues that under deep disagreement over the state's religious character, the drafters adopt either a permissive or a restrictive constitutional approach. While the former implies strategies of constitutional ambiguity, ambivalence, and avoidance in order to allow the political system greater flexibility in future decision making on religion-state relations, the latter approach uses repressive constitutional constraints designed to limit the range of possibilities available to future decision makers. The article further explores the long-term consequences of the two approaches and argues that (1) permissive constitutional arrangements, more than restrictive arrangements, are likely to promote the democratic functioning of future governments; and that (2) permissive constitutional arrangements may facilitate greater freedom of religion, but they are also likely to lead to greater restrictions on freedom from religion, compared with restrictive constitutions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896998866&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887113000208
DO - https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887113000208
M3 - مقالة
SN - 0043-8871
VL - 65
SP - 609
EP - 655
JO - World Politics
JF - World Politics
IS - 4
ER -