Throughout history, religion and politics have always been interlaced to a certain extent. Indeed, the first has been an effective way to address the social relationship among the citizens and it had been useful to create a sense of belonging to a particular socio-political culture. This is further emphasized by the fact that most civilizations have had a particular religion that was often both correlated to, as well as supporting the political ideologies of the population. Considering the Egyptians, for example, the head of the church was also the pharaoh of the kingdom. This enabled the ruler to have absolute power both on the political structure of the civilization, as well as on the religious and ideological one. A similar approach has been present in the United Kingdom since 1534 when King Henry VIII rebelled against the papal spiritual rule within British territories. This schism resulted in that the king would not only be the absolute ruler but also the head of the newly founded Ecclesia Anglicana. Nevertheless, with the passing of centuries, a secularisation process started to arise worldwide which caused a schism between the political and religious spheres of power and influence over the citizens. This was legalized, at least in the European continent, during the Peace of Westphalia, 1648, when the major European rulers met to agree upon the end the Thirty Years’ War. The Treaty emphasized the concept of sovereignty, the supreme authority within a territory, and with it the idea that cuius regio, eius religio (whose realm, his religion). As an outcome, the importance of religion in the political life as well as in the policy-making process started to fade, whilst meanwhile, modern nations states started to arise. Nevertheless, this process is still ongoing and, depending upon different factors, religion is either strongly affecting some countries or it ultimately became second to the general will of the citizens.
In the case of the United States of America, “the controversy over mixing religion and politics has not kept religion apart from government”. Indeed, religious groups are present and they participate in a wide variety of political activities, yet they are organized as neither political parties nor political machines. Nevertheless, it does not mean that a certain level of affiliation between a particular religious group and a political party cannot be present. As a consequence, even though the religious beliefs of the elected president would indirectly affect the political ideology of the country, it would not influence the nature of the government itself. The separation of the church to the legal state is even specified in the First Amendment of the American Constitution: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” This had two major outcomes; the first one is that it would grant the freedom of religion from state regulation, yet, being this rule so generic, it does not specify the extent to which it is allowed to interfere with the political culture. Indeed, “religious political movements, religious political parties, organized religious pressure groups, and church lobbying are outside the purview of any constitutional provision”. The only other mention of religion in the American constitution, that vaguely pinpoints this issue, is in article six: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. As a consequence, a Holy Book cannot be used to rectify policy making in the country, yet it didn’t eradicate the presence of political and interest groups that are strongly based on them. These groups have the assigned function of providing their constituents with information regarding the government as well as representing their denominational or interdenominational church bodies before the federal government. These range between the Catholic Church, which has had offices in Washington DC for the last forty years, to various methodists and protestants churches as well as a strong Zionist movement that had influenced the political relation between the US and Israel.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In the 1980s these started two different political movements in the country: the accommodationist and the separatist movements. The first one argues that the government should support and protect the religious heritage of the United States, whilst the other one supports an even stricter separation between the religious and political culture of the country. Studies show that, in the absence of specific issues or policymaking, the population will show a separatist ideology, thus supporting the Jeffersonian “wall of separation”. On the other hand, when a new policy would affect the religious heritage or common beliefs would cause an increase in accommodationist attitude within the shared political culture. However, it is important to notice that, according to the research carried out by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) in 1991 and 1998, the majority of the population would not want religious authorities to be elected at the government, 64 and 65 percent respectively, whilst only 17 and 16 percent of the population was favorable. This is further emphasized by research carried out in 1986 and 1994 when 46 and 50 percent of Americans was discontent with the fact that public officials were too close to religion or religious leaders.
Depending on the country, however, religion may occupy a larger portion of the political sphere of the nation. As a consequence, even though in the US the effect it may have is controlled and limited by the constitution, in another country this may not always be the case. One example is Saudi Arabia, that is a totalitarian monarchy that lacks an actual constitution but whose legal system is based upon the Shari’a law and the Islamic Law. The term Shari’a can be translated from Arabic as “the path in which God wishes men to walk” and it is the sum if all Allah’s commandments and the moral and practical outcomes. The Islamic Law, that is the interpretation of the Shari’a into a legal system, shows how religion plays an important role in the political ideology of the countries in which it is practiced. Even though the Shari’a itself does not have a legal basis, to the Muslim it is a form of divine authority, and therefore, it covers a much wider field than most modern legal system. Indeed, it regulates every aspect and detail of a man's life and his path towards God, the State, and himself. Nevertheless, Vogel identified the presence of a duality within the Saudi’s legal system stating that “In most Islamic states… the legal system his bifurcated: one part is based on man-made, positive law; the other part is Islamic Law… Saudi Arabia also has a dual legal system… the Islamic component of the legal system is fundamental and dominant. The positive law, on the other hand, is subordinate, constitutionally and in scope.” Therefore, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is attempting to harmonize the teachings of Islam with the economic and industrial development. This is achieved by the harmonization fo the duality of its legal system and thereafter by modernizing the Shari’a law, yet maintaining its Islamic principles. Even if this process started relatively recently, it causes and justifies the institutionalization of religion into the government thus making it very different with respect of the US ideology. Indeed, as previously mentioned, in the first amendment of the American Constitution it is specified that no religious test should be used to justify the political choices.
It is important to consider the effect of religion, not only on the political sphere but also when considering the citizen’s perspective of it. Indeed, it is possible to notice another cultural difference between the two countries when analyzing the citizen's response towards the influence of religion in their daily lives. This concept was analyzed in a survey regarding the state of happiness in Saudi Arabia that conducted by Ipsos, in 2019. The study showed that 55 percent of respondents believed that their religious or spiritual well-being either does or could give them the greatest form of happiness. Similarly, 31 percent of respondents stated this was a source of some happiness. Only 14 percent of the test population went against the trend and answered that religion either does not influence their happiness or that it does so even if to a minor extent. These results strongly differ to those of another study conducted on US soil, that was showing the influence that religion has on the American Life. According to the latter in the year 2000, 58 percent of the population reported that religion was losing influence, 36 percent that it was increasing and 4 percent stated that it didn’t change. In 2018 this values strongly changed, for which 76 percent of the population stated that religion lost influence on American Life, only 21 percent said that it increased, and 1 percent that it remained the same. It is possible to note a correlation between the influence that religion has on the political life, and how it affects the personal life and satisfaction. Indeed, the difference between the popular belief that religion is influential in a country where most of the legal system is based upon the Holy text, against a country where religion and the legal system are not related, is close to 50 percent difference. Indeed in the US it is only 36 percent against the 86 cumulative percentage in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, this raises some question regarding why was there a steady decline of the importance of religion in the US, and if that could happen in Saudi Arabia in the near future.
The influence of religion on the political sphere does not necessarily imply that the laws are more rightful or neither followed through. In order to understand that it is important to consider the rule of Law, that is defined within the report redacted by Statista as: “the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials” and it is ranked in percentages. The indicator is used to understand the extent to which the country's population has confidence in reliability of legal authorities and police as well as the likelihood of crime and violence to occur. It is important to compare the difference between the two countries when considering its effects in the citizens’ everyday lives. Saudi Arabia is ranked as number 90, with a score that is ranging from 41-60%, according to World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators in 2017. The United States, on the other hand, have a score that is above the 81 percent, consequently placing further up in the world rank. This indicator is also closely related to and representative to the corruption level in the countries, and the efficiency of policies implemented to control corruption levels in the countries. According to the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators 2018, the United States ranked 21st out of 150, whilst Saudi Arabia was the 44th. This results show how, even though the Shari’a law is based on the Qur’an it is less efficient and perceived as less trustworthy then the American one, that is defined by the constitution as not related to any particular religion nor based on a holy text.
In conclusion, religion still affects the political system of the countries, as it did throughout history. Nevertheless, the extent to which it does so significantly varies depending on the cultural traditions and general will of the citizens of a nation-state. It is possible to notice how in the case of the United States there is a duality between the government and religion, thus separating the two. This however does not imply that the two spheres cannot influence each other, to a certain extent, but it limits the extent to which this can occur through the American Constitution. On the other hand, when considering more in depth Saudi Arabia’s political ideology it is possible to notice how closely related to religion it is. Indeed, the Shari’a Law is the central piece on which the Saudi’s legal system is based upon. Throughout the year new laws have been created and implemented but they are still second to the Islamic Law. Interestingly enough, the less religion is present in the political life, the less people want it to influence it, as shown in the surveys conducted on US soil. On the other hand, when religion is more present people believe that their greatest forms of happiness come from it, on top of everything else. However, the legal system in Saudi Arabia is less efficient and more inclined to corruption than the American counterpart. Even though more studies should be conducted and more countries should be taken into consideration, when considering these two countries it is possible to notice how, the more religion affects the country’s politics then the more inefficient the legal system seems to be. Nevertheless, this research is not taking into consideration the differences that these two countries have regarding the level of development, the economic stability, the external influences these countries may have, and others. As a consequence, this research paper is not enough to state with certainty whether that’s the case, but it is enough to form an estimated hypothesis.
Stuck on your essay?
