Search

One of the most significant shifts in the 21st-century political landscape has been the rise of global populism, particularly as it is expressed through the lens of civilizationism, a relatively new field of study. Consider the numerous populist movements around the world that have captured the front pages of international news, from the United States to Europe and beyond, including Modi in India and Erdogan in Turkey. In many countries, such as the United States, religious nationalism has only increased support for and upheld populist ideologies by focusing on the intersection of national identity and the integration of religious ideals in the public square and political establishment.

Within this context of increased nationalistic and global polarization, my article “Populism, Nationalism, and Civilizationism: Implications and Complications for Religious Freedom,” published in The Review of Faith and International Affairs, examines how civilizationalism and cultural populism exacerbate polarization and undermine existing democratic institutions. Examining case studies from the United States, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Indonesia, this article primarily focuses on countries where Christian, Jewish, and Islamic nationalism have mirrored the rise of populism. Despite the fact that religious freedom is often associated with democratic societies, increased civilizationalism, nationalism, and populism have eroded democratic norms in many of these case studies, increasing tensions between religious groups by privileging one over the other.  Increasing “us vs. them” rhetoric threatens global democracy, and the fracturing of democratic institutions reveals how powerful religion can be as a tool for political identity.

The concept of religious freedom refers to the principles, laws, and norms that advocate for and protect the liberty of spiritual and sacramental beliefs. Despite being widely accepted as essential to democracy, scholar Jonathan Fox argues that “religious freedom,” while a critical component of liberal democracies, can be difficult to define. Fox claims there are two primary theoretical conceptions of religious freedom: (1) the free exercise of religion and (2) that states must treat all religions equally. In the United States, two key laws have codified the First Amendment’s freedom of religion: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) and the International Freedom Restoration Act (1998). However, scholars debate whether true freedom is actually achievable, considering the many imperfections when put into practice. Often, religious freedom policies in practice protect majority religions far more than minority faith groups.

Religious nationalism, on the other hand, demands that religious values and one’s religious identity and aspirations be not only protected but also integrated with core elements of national identity. In addition, religious nationalism asserts that the community’s interests should be protected by laws that also reflect the moral and spiritual values inherent in the group’s system of beliefs. As global democratic movements grew in the late 18th- and 19th-century, so did ideals of patriotism, national identity, and the exercise of individual rights and personal autonomy within global societies. However, at times, marginalized minorities, including specific religious communities, felt excluded from the exercise of nationalism, which gave rise to religious nationalism.

Mark Juergensmeyer defines two types of religious nationalism: ethnic religious nationalism, which links explicitly land and people, and ideological religious nationalism, which links ideas and beliefs, such as moral values. While ethnic religious nationalism “politicizes religion,” a more ideological approach to religious nationalism “religionizes politics.” The enemies of religious nationalism, according to Juergensmeyer, are two-fold: religious actors within one’s own sect who fail to link the future aspirations of the religious order with the political accomplishments of the state, and secular actors who disregard religion within their own state context. When religious nationalism frames political goals as sacred, political disagreements become existential threats or spiritual conflicts. Some of the prominent examples of the modern rise of religious nationalism include India, Myanmar, Turkey, Israel, and the United States.

“Civilizationalism” divides the world into different civilizations, often defined by religion. Two of the most prolific scholars of civilizationism, Ihsan Yilmaz and Nicholas Morieson, argue that “when civilizationalism is adhered [sic] with populism, the result is a set of ideas that define self and other not primarily in national terms, but in civilizational terms.” Understanding the processes by which one civilization is privileged over another deepens our understanding of political ideologies that exclude or embrace cultural, religious, and political differences. Cultural populism, on the other hand, uses a rhetoric that pits the “ordinary people” against elite society. Often overlapping with religious nationalism and centering one religion as essential to the well-being of a country, it rejects multiculturalism and globalization. Religious nationalism can support and uphold cultural populist ideologies by focusing on the intersection of national identity and the integration of religious ideals in the public square and political establishment.

These ideas come together in civilizational populism, which divides society into the “pure people,” “corrupt elites,” and “dangerous others.” This form of civilizationalism frames the “dangerous others” (who are often religious or cultural minorities) as a threat that the corrupt, traitorous elites are allowing to undermine society. Civilizational populism frames one religion as being morally superior, and often poses immigrants and minorities as an existential threat to the “morally good” people of society. For example, anti-Islam rhetoric in the Netherlands suggests that Muslim immigrants will threaten the existing majority Christian liberal democracy. In Indonesia, on the other hand, Islamic populist groups view themselves as the defenders of Islam and the only “true believers.”

Across many of the case studies examined in the longer academic article, society is divided into morally pure and morally corrupt groups when religion is weaponized as a tool for power. While most studies in academic research today focus on Western and/or Abrahamic religious contexts, further research is needed to understand how rising civilizational and populist rhetoric affects religious freedom and how it is crucial to defending pluralism and democratic institutions around the world.