The Power of Majorities and Church-State Separation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LUISSearch PhD Program in Political Theory Cycle XXVII The Power of Majorities and Church-State Separation PhD Thesis by Sebastián Rudas Neyra Thesis Advisor Sebastiano Maffettone Rome, November 2014 2 Acknowledgments I would not have been able to write this dissertation without the help and support of several people. My fellow PhD students, and friends, at LUISS University have been an invaluable source of inspiration and of enlightenment. I benefited from discussions with them either during our reading groups and our ―Counter- Seminar.‖ In particular, I want to thank Ali Emre Benli, Manohar Kumar, Silvia Cavasola, Silvia Menegazzi, Zhun Zhong, Fabienne Zwagemakers, Chenchen Zhang, Desire Nizigiyimana, Donatella Vincenti, Chiara Cancellario, and Giovanni Vezzani. I am also very thankful to Daniele Santoro for the time he spent reading and commenting on my chapters. Domenico Melidoro, Valentina Gentile, Gianfranco Pellegrino, Alessandro Ferrara, and Joselyn Maclure also contributed to the development of this thesis. Last but not least, I want to thank my supervisor, Sebastiano Maffettone, for his support, encouragement, and orientation during my PhD experience. This dissertation has also ‗institutional debts.‘ The Center for Ethics and Global Justice of the Department of Political Science at LUISS University provided me with a scholarship for pursuing my PhD studies. Parts of this dissertation were presented in several conference, including the Conference of the Italian Society for Analytic Philosophy at the University of L‘Aquila (Italy), the ―Meetings on Ethics and Political Philosophy,‖ at the University of Minho (Portugal), the ―Second International Seminar on Philosophy of Education,‖ at Azim Premji University (India), the conference on ―Civil Religion, Religion, and 3 the Common Good,‖ at London Metropolitan University (UK), and three Graduate Seminars at LUISS University. I am grateful to the audiences of each of these venues. I also want to thank Laura Iozzelli, who carefully and patiently read the full manuscript and corrected its grammar, style, and content. I would not have been able to finish this PhD without her. Editorial tasks were also carried out by Ali Emre Benli, who has been a full-time interlocutor of the ideas here developed. I also want to thank my flatmate Alessio Calvano, who created an excellent atmosphere at home, just what every PhD student needs in the last steps of writing a dissertation. Finally, I want to thank my mother, my father, and my brother. Their support and love during all these years have been fundamental for me. This thesis is dedicated to them. 4 Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................... 3 Contents ............................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7 PART I .................................................................................................................. 26 CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................... 27 Deliberative Democracy and the Power of Majorities .......................................... 27 1. Aggregative Democracy and the status-quo objection .............................. 29 2. Deliberative Democracy and Moderation .................................................. 32 3. A comparative analysis of deliberative democracy and moderation ......... 38 4. On Fundamentalism and Reasonableness .................................................. 42 5. Concluding Remarks .................................................................................. 52 CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................... 54 On Tolerating Majorities ....................................................................................... 54 1. Concept and conceptions of toleration ....................................................... 56 2. Liberal toleration and recognition .............................................................. 62 3. Toleration and majority-minority relationships ......................................... 71 4. Toleration and the Expressive State ........................................................... 74 5. Concluding Remarks .................................................................................. 83 CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................... 85 Majoritarian Beliefs and Neo-Republicanism ...................................................... 85 1. Common avowable interests ...................................................................... 86 2. Social norms and private domination ........................................................ 88 3. A real life situation: Republican Spain ...................................................... 98 4. A counterfactual case: Republican Peru* ................................................ 103 5. Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 106 PART II ............................................................................................................... 108 CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................... 110 On Separation and Anticlericalism ..................................................................... 110 5 1. Two conceptions of secularism: laïcité and liberal pluralism ................. 111 2. Secularism in Colombia ........................................................................... 118 3. Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 128 CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................... 130 Italy and the Principle of (Strict) Church-State Separation ................................ 130 1. Secularism: from hostility to recognition................................................. 132 2. Contexts Matter: ―The Concordat‘s Distortion‖ ...................................... 134 3. Italian secularism: weak or incomplete? .................................................. 137 4. Principle of strict separation .................................................................... 140 5. Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 160 Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 162 6 Introduction This dissertation addresses the debate about the proper role of religion in the public sphere. However, this is not ‗yet another thesis‘ on the subject, because it is approached from a point of view that is usually overlooked by contemporary political philosophers. Namely, the relationship between majoritarian social norms, usually reinforced by religious institutions and the law, and oppressed social groups. The current diagnosis of the debate about ―public religions‖ is that the western notion of the secular state and the liberal conception of toleration need to be reshaped. The steady, or even increasing, presence of religion in the public sphere has led many scholars to think that the secular state is in crisis.1 The traditional separation between the state and the churches, or between politics and religion, is not perceived anymore as promoting the bases for respectful coexistence. Recent controversies in Europe, such as the headscarves affair in France or the Swiss ban on constructions of minarets, are interpreted as signs of 1 Rajeev Bhargava, ―Rehabilitating Secularism,‖ in Rethinking Secularism, ed. Craig Calhoun, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen (92-113: Oxford University Press, USA, 2011); Lorenzo Zucca, ―The Crisis of the Secular State—A Reply to Professor Sajó,‖ International Journal of Constitutional Law 7, no. 3 (July 1, 2009): 494–514, doi:10.1093/icon/mop010; András Sajó, ―Preliminaries to a Concept of Constitutional Secularism,‖ International Journal of Constitutional Law 6, no. 3–4 (July 1, 2008): 605–29, doi:10.1093/icon/mon018; Jürgen Habermas, ―Religion in the Public Sphere,‖ European Journal of Philosophy 14, no. 1 (April 1, 2006): 1–25, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00241.x; Jean Baubérot, ―The Two Thresholds of Laicization,‖ in Secularism and Its Critics, ed. Rajeev Bhargava (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), 94–136. 7 the incapacity of the secular state to deal with the challenges of contemporary pluralism. Consequently, the dominant position among political philosophers addressing the question of the proper role of religion in the public sphere is that the secular state cannot insist on its traditional requirements given the diversification of immigration and the transformation of religious beliefs in contemporary democracies. It is concluded that, in its traditional conception, the secular state is unable to deal with diversity. As a response to this diagnosis, philosophers have developed more flexible interpretations of the requirements of secularism and therefore have made the separation between politics and religion more permeable. This position receives several names and all suggest some degree of openness towards diversity: