Best Drupal HostingBest Joomla HostingBest Wordpress Hosting

World Policy Journal is proud to share our weekly podcast, World Policy On Air, featuring former Newsweek On Air host David Alpern. Click here to subscribe on iTunes!



The Long and Winding Road to Secular Democracy

By Nick Danforth

Following the electoral success of Islamist parties in Tunisia and Egypt, a vexing question is once again in the news: how can Islam and democracy healthily coexist? Unfortunately, debates over the importance and difficulty of separating "mosque and state" often become confused by the obvious (if seldom stated) comparison: the evolution of secularism in Christian Europe.

After a decade's worth of arguing, everyone seems happy to stick to their rival assumptions about  Christianity and Islam— Some people take it for granted that Christianity was always more secular, some find this idea too ridiculous to even discuss.

But assumptions have dangers. Those who only see the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity too often conclude that if democracy cannot prevail in the Muslim Middle East, autocracy might be a safer choice. Those who follow their (usually reliable) instinct to focus on the similarities, however, often cannot explain the success of Islamist parties as anything other than a reaction to secular autocracy. Seeing the counter-intuitive chain of events that led to secular democracy in Europe will help both sides better appreciate the challenge facing the Middle East.

There really was an important historical difference between church-state relations in the Christian and Islamic worlds— but certainly not because Christianity itself was any more secular than Islam. Rather, the separation of church and state in Europe took shape from the unique institution of the Vatican, and its millennia-long fight against the separation of church and state. In fact, for years the only thing church leaders and their monarchical counterparts agreed on was that church and state should be united. They just disagreed over who should be holding the reins.  And this fight for  power kept church and state at odds.

In short, after the Roman Empire fell, the pope maintained control over the church (and its extensive property) throughout Western Europe. The pope’s earthly power frequently brought him into conflict with Europe's local kings. When these  rulers tried to seize church land or appoint bishops, the church called on its considerable allies and resources to resist. In its purest form, this conflict would pit some of Europe's most powerful rulers—Charlemagne, several Holy Roman Emperors, and King Philip IV of France—against the pope over the question of whether  kings should choose the pope or  the pope should choose the kings. Both sides might well have been happy to play the role of the Islamic Caliph, with the joint spiritual and temporal authority it entailed. But though both church and state relied on the other for legitimacy,  neither could permanently gain the upper hand.

The different situation in the Islamic world can be partly explained by the lack of any powerful equivalent to the Vatican. When Sultan Selim the Grim conquered Egypt in 1517, for example, he simply took the title of Caliph back to Istanbul, where he delegated responsibility for church affairs to a religious leader under his authority. Looked at in another light, Selim succeeded in doing what Philip the IV failed to do in the 14th century, when he tried to create a French papacy in Avignon that would answer  to him. Selim could transplant the Caliphate, but Philip could not craft a viable rival to the Vatican.

Ironically, the Protestant Reformation was in many ways a step back for the separation of church and state in Europe. Free of the Vatican's control, Henry VIII, for example, elevated himself to a position analogous to the Caliph's. Over the next several centuries, English monarchs ruled as the head of church and state alike while their country evolved into a liberal democracy and industrial superpower. The papacy, by contrast, only belatedly came to terms with  democracy at the beginning of the 20th century—after having its temporal power stripped by men like Robespierre and Garibaldi. Crucially, when the French revolution abolished the church, the Vatican didn't disappear. It remained in Rome, where, after a century of denouncing democracy, liberalism, and progress, it grudgingly accepted a new role in the world as the cost of remaining relevant. In modern Turkey, by contrast, when Ataturk's revolution (following the French example) abolished the Caliphate, the religious body disappeared. As a result there was less opposition to secular reforms, but also no institution to eventually accept them on behalf of the faithful. The balance of institutions, long entrenched by conflict in Europe, was not duplicated in the Middle East.

So what lessons does this hold for dealing with Islamists in the Middle East today? First, it suggests that in evaluating Islamist governments we should pay attention to institutions as well as ideology. What matters are not just the religious inclinations of the governing party, but also the party's structural relationship to the religious establishment it claims to represent.  Worried about religious opposition, a generation of secular dictators has done everything possible to bring religious life and all its features under state control. As a result, victorious religious parties are (thanks to their predecessors) positioned to take over not just the state, but the religious machinery that goes with it.

This leads to the second lesson: don't expect Islamic societies to necessarily arrive at secular democracy by the same winding, chaotic path  Europe did. In the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, secularism evolved under a united church and state. In France and Italy, secularism emerged through the state’s victory over the church. There’s no reason to think that Middle Eastern countries need to replicate either model. Calls for an Islamic Martin Luther or a Muslim ‘reformation’ are particularly unhelpful. This approach not only implies that democracy is out of reach for the Catholic world, but also assumes that secularism in Europe was a product of enlightened theology not politics. Rather than push reductive solutions that ignore a complex history, policymakers in the West should have the courage and patience to address the Middle East's evolution on its own terms.


Nick Danforth is a doctoral student in history at Georgetown University.

[Photo courtesy of Ryan Godfrey] Share/Save

Anonymous's picture
Good job! You do understand what happened!

"Rather, the separation of church and state in Europe took shape from the unique institution of the Vatican, and its millennia-long fight against the separation of church and state." I am so glad you put that comment. That makes you one among, let's see, eight or ten people I know who actually are aware of that fact. Traditional Catholicism is all about the religious state, and as many regulations as are necessary to protect the small, the weak, the helpless, the worker, the family. Do you know that Vatican II (the 60's) was the only, the first, official step cancelling that long fight? And how we have lived to regret it! That's what the struggle between the present, liberal Vatican and SSPX is all about--it was the central fissure in Archbishop Lefebvre's broken heart, that the Council uncrowned Christ by endorsing the secular state. When the Church caved, the last protection the poor and working stiff had was swept away into the murky, polluted waters of the protestant revolt. But we have need have no fear of Islam's call for the religious state. It is a reaction against secular autocracy, yes, I believe you are correct, but it will not last and it too will end in liberalism, partly because the islamic spring seems hell bent on what we know as democracy, the anti-democracy of our own secularism (in which the real choices are made elsewhere, and our electoral choices are carefully orchastrated). The other part is they have no magisterium, no teaching authority, they are hopelessly divided, and in the end they will end with religious liberty by right, and the inevitable secularism that goes with it. We have everything to fear from secularism--it is ending in slavery for us and the destruction of private property!--but nothing to fear from islam. (This writer is dedicated to the exposure of all the statements and empty proclamations of that catastrophe known as Vatican II, and the restoration of our Catholic mission in the world. If you are, too, that makes about four of us. Quite enough, given the requisite miracle.)

Anonymous's picture
On Theocracy, Foxes

Hi Nick, May I recommend an historical account of this European state/church struggle from a Biblical perspective? Foxes book of Martyrs** is perhaps the benchmark publication concerning Christianity and the state, since Christ. There is another point separating Islam/state and Christian/state Theocracies, while Christianity is a gospel to be preached to "all the world", the Quran begins with "Written in plain Arabic for Arabs", as a non Arab reading the Quran You can't help but notice the cultural bias therein against You.
Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account, used to display your avatar.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.


Around WPI

Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa 

This paper, “Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenging the Narratives of the War on Terror,” examines the history of Islamic movements in Africa's Sahel region to contextualize current conflicts.

World Economic Roundtable with Vicente Fox 

In this World Economic Roundtable, former Mexican President Vicente Fox discusses his current quest to make his country a hub for technology. 

Intern at World Policy

Want to join our team? Looking for an experience at one of the most highly sought-after internships for ambitious students? Application details here.


Al Gore presides over Arctic Roundtable 

As the United States prepares to assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, this inaugural convening of the Arctic Deeply Roundtables launches a vital conversation for our times. 


When the Senate Worked for Us:
New book offers untold stories of how activist staffers countered corporate lobbies in the U.S.

MA in International Policy and Development
Middlebury Institute (Monterey, CA): Put theory into practice through client-based coursework. Apply by Feb. 1.

Millennium Project’s State of the Future 19.0: Collective Intelligence on the Future of the World


To learn about the latest in media, programming, and fellowship, subscribe to the World Policy Weekly Newsletter and read through our archives.

World Policy on Facebook