From the President: Realism and Religious Liberty

By Dr. Chris Seiple on 01 February 2005

The Institute for Global Engagement works fervently, patiently, and quietly for religious freedom in several authoritarian countries around the world. The common characteristic among these countries is a government that is not necessarily anti-religion per se, but anti-anything that is perceived to threaten social stability and therefore political control.

In such contexts, well-meaning but politically naïve forms of human rights activism often have negligible or even counterproductive effects. Accordingly we have found the following priorities — relationships, respect, and cooperation — to be the most realistic in building sustainable solutions.

Relationships

As any good businessman or politician, in any culture, will tell you, anything that lasts is the by-product of good relationships. Here at the Institute we take a long-term approach, building friendships in which both parties can speak truth to each other out of mutual respect, as friends should. We do not seek to embarrass or berate. Wherever possible, we invest in one life at a time, for a lifetime. This is where solutions begin.

Respect

Good relationships are grounded in respect for the cultural and political contexts in which we each work. We build respect with our friends from other countries by listening, seeking to understand their culture first, as they do the same with us. It has been our experience that there are almost always good people in these authoritarian governments and that it serves no one to paint a government or country broadly as "bad," let alone evil. Similarly, it has also been our experience that there is always something within the culture that can be identified and encouraged — through local partnerships — that is consistent with our own understanding of religious freedom. If that "something" is to endure, it must be home grown. It cannot be seen as a Western import. This may seem an obvious approach, but it is seldom practiced in our business — the business of transforming the structures of religious persecution.

The political context is equally important. How does religious freedom serve the self-interest of the government? Among American human rights advocates, such a question may appear at first glance to be "politically incorrect" or even amoral, but it is a necessary one to ask. These governments are not going anywhere anytime soon and a value, such as religious liberty, that is perceived to be a foreign imposition or alien to the culture and the needs of the government is simply not going to take root. Irrelevance is the result, no matter how many op-eds decrying religious persecution we might publish in America.

Cooperation

We tell our friends in foreign governments that cooperation, not crackdown, is the best means of "controlling" religious groups, i.e. keeping religious activity within the rule of law. This might not seem like a politically correct approach either, but it is nonetheless realistic as we account for the perceptions of authoritarian governments. Western advocates generally make two mistakes. First, they simply proclaim a Western understanding of religious freedom without an understanding of the context in which religious freedom must be practically implemented. Second, they do not account for authoritarian governments' fundamental fear of things they cannot control and the perceived instability that will result. This concern must be addressed by finding a way for both sides — governments and religious groups — to cooperate in determining what the rule of law should entail with respect to religion.

If transparency in religious activity can be accommodated in a way that does not threaten the government (a process which can include educating the leaders among religious minorities), then the government will begin to appreciate the truth that religious groups make vital contributions to the health of society. People of faith not only pray for the wisdom of the government's leaders, but contribute — morally and financially — to the common weal.

Conclusion

Recently I had opportunity to be in Hanoi. A city of ten million, and the capital of a great nation, it possesses some unusual traffic patterns. Imagine schools of fish darting to and fro. Lanes mean nothing. Wherever you go there are trucks, cars, motorbikes, scooters, and pedestrians. Always moving in conflicting directions, they often occupy the very same lane. Intersections are miraculous to behold. Without traffic lights, without accidents, the schools of fish merge and then emerge on the other side.

For the average Westerner, entering this maelstrom of motor and movement seems an impossible task. Americans can be forgiven for feeling like they have stepped into the human version of the "Frogger" video game, or for thinking that there are only two choices: either stay on the sidewalk in paralysis or enter the fray and cause an accident.

Yet there is a method to the madness. This "third way" is based on mutual understanding. It is the responsibility of the pedestrian to respect the flow of traffic even as the traffic respects the pedestrian's right to cross the street. The key is gradualism. The pedestrian makes no sudden moves, slipping into the flow with assurance but not arrogance. The drivers accept the presence of the pedestrian as well as their responsibility to ensure safe crossing. Harmony results.

So too in our efforts to develop and sustain the right of people to choose a faith freely, such that religious groups might contribute harmoniously to social stability and progress. "Mirror image" engagement serves no one; while we in the West must not apologize for our advocacy of universal values, we must also respect the way of things in cultures not our own. The keys to realistic advancement of freedom of religion in authoritarian environments are patience and vision, humility and boldness. Above all, engagement is sustained by strategies and solutions rooted in relationships, respect, and cooperation.

Last updated 29 November 1999