Advancing Freedom of Religion and Belief: A New Framework
By Carol Hamrin on 24 September 2004
"Americans and citizens of other liberal democracies need a fresh approach to the advocacy of freedom of religion and belief — a critical component of human rights and political freedom — in countries with poor human rights records. Past efforts to influence such countries have often failed to improve significantly the protection of religious human rights because they have been perceived as foreign impositions, not as opportunities for mutually advantageous cooperation. Nor have prior efforts consistently been designed to fit the current social context of offending countries or to support the work of specific indigenous actors who are positioned to make the changes. Instead, religious freedom interventions have aroused official and popular suspicion of subversive political intent, eroding trust.
A new approach must first recognize that outside advocates have a stake in gradual social and political progress. This is not to suggest that external actors should merely ""shore up"" incumbent regimes at all costs, but it does mean that the many business and nongovernmental organizations that operate abroad should be expending more effort to promote positive change in their operational locales.
Unfortunately, prevailing approaches to promoting religious freedom are ineffective in many countries. This is in part due to flawed assumptions about social change and also to chronic indecision as public debate focuses on the artificial policy choice of either ""engagement"" or ""sanctions."" This simplistic way of thinking about the strategic alternatives falsely pits business against morality (this in an era when ethical business practices have proven to be among the most effective mechanisms for purveying positive values).
In this report we present a new framework that is a ""both/and"" approach that emphasizes new efforts to support medium- and long-term cultural and institutional changes that are so necessary for sustained progress. At the same time, this approach preserves room for publicity and advocacy for urgent cases of abuse. The framework can be used in strategic planning by civic institutions as well as by economic actors to promote respect for religious and other rights. These nongovernmental actors are purveyors of ""soft power"" (e.g. training and modeling new values and ways of doing things), and they often have more influence and access to the agents of progress than does the U.S. government, which typically relies on ""hard"" political and military power. We first discuss the weaknesses of past efforts, and then explain the logic and principles of a new framework that emphasizes ""win-win"" diplomacy and engagement.
The Failure of Conventional Religious Freedom Activism
Many rights advocates operate under flawed theories of social change, somehow assuming that moral shaming and political pressure from the outside is sufficient to force dictatorships to transform themselves into free and democratic countries overnight. Such activists have relied primarily on a combination of (a) lobbying for ""top-down"" government-to-government political discussions at high levels, and (b) media exposure of detentions or arrests to pressure foreign governments into concessions regarding religious rights abuses.
To be sure, this has had some positive results in raising the consciousness of U.S. and foreign government officials as well as secular human rights advocates, who now pay more regular attention to the issue of religion. But activist attempts to get the U.S. to slap sanctions on countries that violate religious freedom have not fared well. In fact, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have sought to minimize the use of sanctions. Instead, fairly conventional diplomatic measures have been employed: demanding the release of prisoners of conscience in conversations with foreign counterparts; conducting official dialogues on religious and other human rights; and seeking censuring resolutions in the annual sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
However, lasting results on the ground have been minimal. Many activists contend that these disappointing results should lead us to adopt a ""get-tougher"" approach, so to speak. But on closer inspection it is clear that this is short-sighted and counterproductive in several respects:
Short-term Impact. In response to American criticism and threats, foreign governments now often make a few token releases of prisoners of conscience in exchange for tactical gains or avoidance of confrontation during high-level state meetings. They also carry out more extensive public relations efforts. But this has not changed the policies of curtailing and controlling religious activity.
Arousing Anti-Americanism. Citizens in most strong authoritarian regimes lack access to objective information, yet have become cynical about political ideology of any kind. Some have concluded that expressed American concerns about their rights are not genuine, but are aimed at the political goal of weakening or destabilizing their nation. This fuels anti-Americanism and appears to justify nationalistic government campaigns against foreign influence, inhibiting nongovernmental interaction.
Alienating Business Interests
American strategy has focused on seeking ""leverage"" against offending governments, on the false assumption that outside actors can easily change the situation on their own through means such as economic sanctions. Yet the use of national trade or investment prohibitions has rarely been effective, except in short-term, highly specific situations where they could be rigorously enforced. As foreign economies have developed and diversified, there are many places to buy or sell in the global market. Also, economic leaders resent attempts to hi-jack the economy for other purposes, and are naturally offended as well by assertions that they have no moral sensitivities. The result is less inclination on their part to work on the rights agenda.
Weaker Moral Leverage
Moral condemnation by U.S. government officials will be even less effective in the future, in part because in much of the world, politicians are not trusted as moral authorities. In particular, the military prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq has done significant damage to the moral authority of the U.S. government for the near term.
The Opportunity for a New Approach
In many authoritarian societies, younger officials and policy advisers are interested in new approaches to modern, accountable, and nonideological governance. And as these societies open up and more and more people interact directly with foreigners, outside actors have the opportunity to incorporate religious freedom goals as they engage with practical-minded and future-oriented citizens.
Younger generations, new political, social and economic elites, grass-roots social groups-all have less vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Engagement strategies should accordingly strive to show these change agents that freedom of conscience, religion and belief is not only morally right but also in their society's practical self-interest. In particular, such efforts should explain that this freedom is central to achieving three beneficial outcomes.
First, freedom of religion and belief is a cornerstone freedom-that is, it is essential for the protection and advancement of human dignity, which in turn is the foundation for all the fundamental freedoms. Human dignity points to an organic relationship linking the right of religious belief to other rights such as freedom of expression and association. While there are many components to human dignity, at its heart is the freedom to seek transcendent answers to the most fundamental questions about the origins, nature, and destiny of humankind and the meaning of life for oneself and others. This includes the right to change (convert) freely from one belief system to another, which in turn requires the freedom of others to teach (propagate) such beliefs among those who do not yet know about them. If the basic religious dimensions of human dignity and identity are respected, it sets the stage for the balanced and responsible exercise of all the fundamental rights and responsibilities, as well as the human creativity so essential for successful modernizing societies.
A second and related point is that individual freedom of conscience, religion and belief is the sine qua non for developing a healthy and stable civil society. When governments seek to circumscribe the exercise of conscience, religion and belief, they inevitably end up intervening as well in belief doctrines. A government's effort to privilege some sets of beliefs and suppress others (often those with strong supernatural components or foreign ties) is tantamount to establishing a state religion (or state irreligion). This runs the risk of alienating significant segments of the citizenry and fomenting long-term social pathologies and instability. People today need more, not fewer, religion and belief options for building a just and humane society that promotes human dignity and social justice. Public discourse that accommodates competing beliefs and ideational diversity does not foment serious social conflict; it prevents it. Where true religious freedom exists in the public forum, transparency grows, trust is built, civil society matures, and government legitimacy increases.
Third, international security interests, including American interests, are best served when countries experience religious freedom. Suppression of dissent on questions of ultimate concern produces only a façade of order and stability while stoking the fires of unrest that can spill across borders. Disaffected minorities who turn against the state when they experience persecution tend to become radical in doctrine and behavior, and seek alliances with sympathetic neighbors. Rule of religion by law in an even-handed manner, by contrast, allows for socially beneficial flourishing of religion in general while also preserving options for more finely-tuned suppression of specific acts of unlawful behavior. This law enforcement will then occur in ways that have public legitimacy.
Principles for a New Framework
It is time to let agents of ""soft power"" play a major role in bolstering efforts by citizens of foreign countries to improve religious and other human rights. Ethical modeling and practical help will go further than policy prescriptions in changing institutions. Social and cultural institutions, including purveyors of popular culture, should be encouraged to lend their resources and influence to promoting a culture of respect for religious and other rights. From this new perspective, the main task of the U.S. government and other external governments becomes simply maintaining good political relations and eliminating barriers to nongovernmental interchange of all kinds.
Creating a sustainable approach that can effectively promote steady progress toward religious freedom will require consistent and sophisticated parallel cooperative initiatives that involve various sectors and actors, American and non-American alike. While there is no ""one-size-fits-all"" approach to promoting religious freedom abroad, we believe that by following the eight principles listed below, groups from all sectors can engage in successful projects, each operating within their own distinct norms.
(1) Fully integrate freedom of religion and belief with other human rights and rule of law initiatives. There is a strong tendency to think of freedom of religion as an issue that only affects those who already are members of organized religions. ""Mainstreaming"" religious freedom concerns can help counter narrow conceptions that do not match the reality of modern, increasingly pluralistic societies that include rapidly growing communities of faith.
(2) Build consensus and cooperation among outside actors. Offending countries have little external incentive to meet demands for rights improvements unless and until they see evidence of consistent international policies backed by social consensus. Nongovernmental American initiatives would indirectly provide needed evidence of widespread public concern about religious freedom. Particularly valuable would be cross-sectoral exchanges that brought together government, civic and business leaders in discussions or demonstrations of the role of religious freedom and diversity in community building.
(3) Support indigenous problem-solving. Internal incentives are the real engine of basic change. But foreign participation is often welcomed if offered in a spirit of cooperation and problem-solving that offers successful working models and best practices for developing healthy civil societies. These will be less intrusive and more effective than normative policy prescriptions. Human rights and religious freedom advocates need to offer ways of developing not only accountable governments but also responsible citizens. Current reporting sometimes condescendingly depicts indigenous victims as helpless, and encourages a culture of martyrdom among religious adherents.
(4) Promote an understanding of the synergy linking religious freedom, sustainable economic development, and a modern society. International scholars of religion and society have in recent years published compelling research highlighting the key role in economic development played by social capital (values and behavior that promote trust and cooperation). They have also demonstrated the prominent role of faith-based organizations in creating social capital. Religion as social capital is increasingly viewed as an important national resource, equally desirable and necessary compared with financial or human capital. In fact, one might say that the absence of religion in public life is more dangerous than an excess of religious passion. Religious freedom is essential to social capital, and social capital is essential to the development of a healthy economy characterized by low corruption and norms of transparency and reciprocity.
(5) Address the fears of governments regarding religious extremism as a threat to social stability and national security. Anxiety over social unrest, including the spread of new spiritual sects, coupled with a lack of understanding of religion, makes some governments reluctant to change policy. Officials need to be shown how the application of the rule of law toward religion could function as an antidote to religious extremism rather than as a cause of it. They need to be shown how to counter the potential for religious conflict in a freer environment.
(6) Focus on provincial and local, as well as national-level actors. Outside efforts, especially when focused on large countries, should take into account the interests and needs of provincial and local levels, especially if the countries are developing to the point where they are too complex for lasting change to come solely from the top down. As authority is shared between the center and localities, local interests and circumstances differ more than ever.
(7) Work with natives in diaspora. Globalization has uprooted foreign citizens and placed them all over the world, creating ethnic business, educational, philanthropic, and religious networks of global dimension. These networks are ready channels for further efforts.
(8) Coordinate regional and international approaches. Most citizens in authoritarian countries have high expectations for their nation to be accepted as a ""normal"" country, a responsible member of the global society of nations. Adherence to international norms and conventions for arms control and economic trade set the precedent for countries to conform to international human rights norms as well. But positive response to any outside effort is easier to mobilize and justify internally if it is not primarily an American initiative, but instead a regional or international effort. This provides an opportunity for the country to engage in internationally accepted behavior on a voluntary basis rather than under duress.
Conclusion
Conventional approaches that emphasize public moral condemnation, ""top-down"" pressure, and/or reactive diplomacy have not delivered sustainable results on the ground. While case-by-case intervention is important, much more is required to promote cultural and institutional change. The new practically-minded, multi-sector framework offered here could guide future thinking about religious freedom engagement. No single actor leading some ""grand coalition"" will ""own"" this new framework. Rather, it is for multiple actors working in multiple channels to create a shared mindset, a consensus on principles for use by organizations and associations as criteria in shaping concrete initiatives.
Champions are needed in many sectors to start cooperative initiatives and concrete projects that incorporate religious rights objectives. Because religious freedom is not generated overnight, projects should include medium- and long-term activities that promote cultural tolerance and institutional change. The desired result will be effective parallel actions by government and nongovernmental agencies that are synergistic in the same direction-promoting the goal of freedom of conscience in healthy civil societies.
Last updated 12 January 2009