Suchergebnisse

PART I. Reclaiming Religion for Political Science -- Chapter 1 Introduction: Why we need political science of religion -- Chapter 2 Political Science of Religion: Demarcating the field -- PART II. Theocracies -- Chapter 3 Religious Legitimation of Power and the Concept of Theocracy -- Chapter 4 Theocracies as Political Systems -- PART III. Religion in Democracies -- Chapter 5 Here to Stay: The role of religion in contemporary politics -- Chapter 6 Veto Players and Stakeholders: Religion in Polish and American politics

This article explains the public engagement of the Catholic Church in Poland in the post-Communist period (from 1989 to approximately 2015) as a symbolic challenge to the state. It draws on Simon Harrison's theory of symbolic conflicts—conflicts over symbolic capital—applied to power struggles involving religious actors in contemporary political systems. The Polish Church engaged in a valuation contest against the state in which it tried to champion its own religious interpretation of several key elements of Polish statehood and national identity using items from its own symbolic arsenal, including the notion of Pole-Catholic and an emphasis on the Christian origins of Poland. Similarly, by solemnizing state ceremonies with religious symbolism and politicizing the cult of religious figures, the Church sought to sacralize the public sphere. Although these challenges to the symbolic inventory of the state have not led to its total replacement by a competing set of religious symbols, the series of low-intensity conflicts generated a considerable amount of symbolic capital for the Church and contributed to maintaining its authority as a value-based public actor. This, ultimately, helped in sustaining the Church's political leverage throughout most of the post-1989 period, well into the second decade of the twenty-first century. It is only in the last few years that the Church's support for a more stringent abortion law, the scandals connected with sexual abuse by the clergy and its concealment by the hierarchy, and questions over Pope John Paul II's moral integrity have considerably harmed its public image.

Drawing empirically on the examples of the Church of Latter-Day Saints' (Mormon) participation in anti-ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ratification campaign and its latest attempts to influence other political issues of moral consequences (such as same-sex marriage) in the United States, the paper attempts to analyse the dynamics of a contemporary religiously motivated political movement.Despite being, on any of these issues, a part of a wider coalition of political actors, the Mormon church displayed a specifically religious motivation, justification and modus operandi. Owing to strong religious legitimacy of their power – based on the doctrine of continuous revelation and enhanced by a sort of "personality cult" of the Church President-Prophet developing in late 20th century – the leadership of the church has been capable of effective grassroots mobilization, achieved through a disciplined universal priesthood structure.While, from the theoretical point of view, this Mormon political movement is of a traditional, "old" variation (ideological and social cohesion of members, well-defined, stable membership, hierarchical leadership etc.) it has nevertheless been relatively successful in modern political environment. The Mormon engagement, at least in the anti-ERA campaign, had made a difference certainly in Utah, and probably elsewhere as well.

In contemporary Western world religion has long lost its status of a default legitimating formula and has been relegated, in liberal political philosophy, to the private sphere. Institutionally, religious organizations have been largely separated from government institutions. Despite these adverse circumstances, religion – both as a system of ideas, values and norms and in its institutional expression – has adopted effective survival strategies guarding it from social and political marginalization. Religion has been accorded special status among other ideologies. In science, it results in a sort of methodological agnosticism, which treats religious and scientific statements as belonging to two incommensurable spheres. In politics, religious organizations are often granted special legal status among other political actors and religious freedom has been constitutionalized as a special case of general freedom of expression. As judicature and political practice show, religious arguments can often trump non-religious claims when fundamental value conflicts arise. In their political activity, religious organizations have used strategies characteristic for other political actors (lobbying, mass mobilization etc.), thereby gaining democratic legitimacy, as well as unique, religion-specific strategies. Armed with these and other empowering tools, religion can continue to influence democratic political systems in significant ways. ; Utraciwszy status dominującej formuły legitymizacyjnej w świecie zachodnim, religia została też instytucjonalnie oddzielona od państwa i, w myśl ideologii liberalnej, zepchnięta na margines życia publicznego. Pomimo tych niesprzyjających okoliczności, religia – zarówno jako system idei i norm, jak i w wymiarze instytucjonalnym – zdołała obronić się przed marginalizacją, zapewniając sobie szczególny status wśród innych ideologii. W nauce objawia się to swego rodzaju metodologicznym agnostycyzmem, nakazującym traktować twierdzenia religijne jako niewspółmierne z naukowymi, a zatem niepodlegające krytyce. W polityce, organizacje religijne uzyskały w wielu państwach zachodnich szczególną pozycję, a wolność religijna została ukonstytuowana jako szczególny przypadek swobody wypowiedzi. W swej działalności politycznej organizacje religijne stosują zarówno metody identyczne z innymi aktorami politycznymi (lobbying, masowa mobilizacja itp.) – co nadaje im legitymację w ramach demokratycznych systemów politycznych – jak i specyficzne strategie religijne. Działania te są w artykule analizowane głównie na przykładach polskich i amerykańskich. Uzbrojone w takie narzędzia, religijne podmioty polityczne mogą wywierać znaczący wpływ na demokratyczne systemy polityczne.

In contemporary Western world religion has long lost its status of a default legitimating formula and has been relegated, in liberal political philosophy, to the private sphere. Institutionally, religious organizations have been largely separated from government institutions. Despite these adverse circumstances, religion – both as a system of ideas, values and norms and in its institutional expression – has adopted effective survival strategies guarding it from social and political marginalization. Religion has been accorded special status among other ideologies. In science, it results in a sort of methodological agnosticism, which treats religious and scientific statements as belonging to two incommensurable spheres. In politics, religious organizations are often granted special legal status among other political actors and religious freedom has been constitutionalized as a special case of general freedom of expression. As judicature and political practice show, religious arguments can often trump non-religious claims when fundamental value conflicts arise. In their political activity, religious organizations have used strategies characteristic for other political actors (lobbying, mass mobilization etc.), thereby gaining democratic legitimacy, as well as unique, religion-specific strategies. Armed with these and other empowering tools, religion can continue to influence democratic political systems in significant ways. ; Utraciwszy status dominującej formuły legitymizacyjnej w świecie zachodnim, religia została też instytucjonalnie oddzielona od państwa i, w myśl ideologii liberalnej, zepchnięta na margines życia publicznego. Pomimo tych niesprzyjających okoliczności, religia – zarówno jako system idei i norm, jak i w wymiarze instytucjonalnym – zdołała obronić się przed marginalizacją, zapewniając sobie szczególny status wśród innych ideologii. W nauce objawia się to swego rodzaju metodologicznym agnostycyzmem, nakazującym traktować twierdzenia religijne jako niewspółmierne z naukowymi, a zatem niepodlegające krytyce. W polityce, organizacje religijne uzyskały w wielu państwach zachodnich szczególną pozycję, a wolność religijna została ukonstytuowana jako szczególny przypadek swobody wypowiedzi. W swej działalności politycznej organizacje religijne stosują zarówno metody identyczne z innymi aktorami politycznymi (lobbying, masowa mobilizacja itp.) – co nadaje im legitymację w ramach demokratycznych systemów politycznych – jak i specyficzne strategie religijne. Działania te są w artykule analizowane głównie na przykładach polskich i amerykańskich. Uzbrojone w takie narzędzia, religijne podmioty polityczne mogą wywierać znaczący wpływ na demokratyczne systemy polityczne.

The article theorizes theocracy – political power based on religious legitimation – in terms of the theory of social exchange, as arising out of unequal access to and control over religious goods. It then identifies the factors of stability of a system as the actions the rulers must take to successfully counter various attempts by the ruled to neutralize unequal conditions of exchange in which the power relation is grounded. Two empirical examples are offered of the use of religious doctrines to protect the stability thus conceived. The idea of covenant was used by the authorities of 17thcentury Massachusetts to justify the persecution of dissenters as a means of maintaining the purity and unity of the community, and thereby the necessary condition of fulfilling the society's contract with God. The doctrine of continues revelation, on the other hand, gave Mormon leadership throughout 19th century, and especially during the crisis over polygamy, the much needed flexibility to adapt to external pressure without compromising the legitimacy of their God-granted power and the stability of the system.

Perspectives on Transformation

The article aims to, first, critically assess the idea and practice of deliberative democracy and, second, find it a proper place in the democratic theory. I start with defining the concept as it emerges from the works of some of its most prominent proponents (such as Fishkin, Cohen or Habermas), reiterating several of the important arguments in support of it. I then present various criticisms of deliberative democracy, regarding philosophical assumptions that inform it (the idea of common good, the conditions of rational deliberation etc.) and its modus operandi (its alleged procedural superiority over aggregative methods). I then off er further criticism of deliberative democracy as a model of democracy, an alternative to the dominant model of representative democracy, arguing from its ineff ectiveness in influencing political decisions. Instead, in the final section, I propose to establish deliberation as one of the two criteria of classifi cation and assessment of democratic systems, thus restoring its importance in the democratic theory.