Religious actors and constitution drafting: the Philippines and the Arab awakening in comparative perspective

David T. Buckley
{"title":"Religious actors and constitution drafting: the Philippines and the Arab awakening in comparative perspective","authors":"David T. Buckley","doi":"10.1080/20566093.2016.1181363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What strategies do religious elites pursue during potential regime transitions, and what explains this variation? A range of scholarship argues that religious groups, particularly Islamist movements, are prone to maximalist demands during potential transitions, particularly in moments of institutional indeterminacy like constitution drafting. In contrast, I distinguish two strategies open to religious elites in such periods: religious integralism and pious secularism. While religious integralists do attempt to merge state and religious institutions, pious secularists consent to some differentiation of these spheres while protecting a role for religion in post-transition public life. I argue that the choices of religious elites in these periods are heavily influenced by the status of relations with minority religions and secular portions of civil society, which are themselves structured by the prior authoritarian approach to the regulation of religion. I illustrate the framework with case studies drawn from the Arab Awakening (Tunisia and Egypt) and from two distinct periods within the Catholic-majority Philippines.","PeriodicalId":252085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Religious and Political Practice","volume":"475 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Religious and Political Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20566093.2016.1181363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract What strategies do religious elites pursue during potential regime transitions, and what explains this variation? A range of scholarship argues that religious groups, particularly Islamist movements, are prone to maximalist demands during potential transitions, particularly in moments of institutional indeterminacy like constitution drafting. In contrast, I distinguish two strategies open to religious elites in such periods: religious integralism and pious secularism. While religious integralists do attempt to merge state and religious institutions, pious secularists consent to some differentiation of these spheres while protecting a role for religion in post-transition public life. I argue that the choices of religious elites in these periods are heavily influenced by the status of relations with minority religions and secular portions of civil society, which are themselves structured by the prior authoritarian approach to the regulation of religion. I illustrate the framework with case studies drawn from the Arab Awakening (Tunisia and Egypt) and from two distinct periods within the Catholic-majority Philippines.
宗教角色与宪法起草:比较视角下的菲律宾与阿拉伯觉醒
宗教精英在可能发生的政权更迭中会采取什么策略?如何解释这种变化?一系列学术研究认为,宗教团体,尤其是伊斯兰运动,在潜在的过渡时期,尤其是在宪法起草等制度不确定的时刻,倾向于提出最大化的要求。相比之下,我区分了这一时期对宗教精英开放的两种策略:宗教整合主义和虔诚的世俗主义。虽然宗教整合主义者确实试图合并国家和宗教机构,但虔诚的世俗主义者同意这些领域的一些区别,同时保护宗教在转型后的公共生活中的作用。我认为,在这些时期,宗教精英的选择在很大程度上受到与少数宗教和公民社会世俗部分的关系状况的影响,这些关系本身就是由先前的威权主义宗教监管方法所构成的。我用阿拉伯觉醒(突尼斯和埃及)和天主教占多数的菲律宾两个不同时期的案例研究来说明这个框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信