... or can a non-secular democracy be successful?

There are really two meanings to the word secular, one limited, one much more extensive:

1. the separation of church from state;
2. a lack of religious influence on society in general.

Democracy must be secular by nature to the extent of separation of church and state to guarantee certain civil rights, equality, freedom of thought, etc. If you're talking about the latter, though, I'd say we've had a pretty successful democracy with a somewhat strong influence of religious belief on government and policy.

good point.

i had in mind the first definition when writing the question, separation of church and state.

I think democracies can exist where there's not much seperation of church and state. Iran is an example. Wouldn't it really depend on the constitution and especially any Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure I'd call Iran a democracy, but even so, do you think Iran has been successful at providing its citizens a free and fair society?

yes, Iran is an interesting example for this thread.

also, the economist has done a report on the arab world, and one of the issues it touches on, is the possibility (or not) of transition to democracy in at least some of them. would that be feasible? for them to establish some sort of democracy with a religious touch to it? or would religion have to be completely removed from public institutions?

I don't have an answer to that, but the same question could be asked of the US. It would probably get the same muddled answers.

I'd like to see Bart d. post in here.

i don't think an "perfect" democracy actually exists right now on any country, but would you agree in saying the american one is closer to it than the iranian one?

depends what you mean by democracy.

What if your democracy is just a tyranny of the majority?

When is it not?

Absolutely not, democracy is not secular by nature. Whether or not a non-secular democracy can be successful completely depends on what you mean by successful. One might ask whether any sort of democracy can be successful.

The only thing that democracy means is that the people have voting power. There is nothing about a non-secular government that makes democracy impossible.

Maybe you are trying to ask a different question? Such as, is it possible for a non-secular country to have freedom and justice for its citizens?

buffalohed hits on something i was thinking of earlier but forgot here.
in this context, successful is a bit meaningless. There needs to be some sort of criteria to judge it as successful. Essentially, I'm saying successful at achieving what end?
Even freedom and justice there are a bit vague; is absolute freedom from government what we want; what criteria are used to decide what is just, and if things like redistributionary methods are seen as just, how can we square this with freedom; how can we square markets with freedom, since they inherently force one into a capitalist system, and people become oppressed by monetary concerns; etc.

I don't see any reason why a state religion would necessarily limit these things. In practice they seem to try and mold society in a certain way, but that is driven more by human failings than the concept of religion.




Well, one of the wonders of free markets is that you can produce alternatives to what exists, such as a separate commune-type living environment free from money, and like minded people can choose to participate. In a socialist environment, you would be hard pressed to introduce free market capitalism with out near-violent resistance. Freedom is about have the ability to choose your path among available options, not having someone else guarantee all possible options are open.

some vagueness has to be allowed for in order to discuss this topic i believe.

yes, democracy, at its most basic level, is usually about people electing representatives.

but, for example, what if a country decided to become a "catholic democracy"? what would that mean for the pope as an authority figure? would catholics accept to hold general elections to elect a pope? or would he become a ruler above the elected authorities, like the shah in iran?

what about the shah? as long as things remain as they are in iran for him, can their system really be called a democracy when he's the one who pre-approves candidates according to their views and policies and his power is not derived from popular mandate but from a god?

if we talk about a broader definition of democracy, which bh hinted includes freedom and justice for the people, i believe that would necessarily include the option to criticize and oppose the religious component of the government, and that would probably not be allowed by the system already in place would it?

i think there would be difference between the people setting up a government which promotes values related to some kind of religion, and a government that actually incorporates religious authority into the system.

actually, since religion is dealing in absolute yet unverifiable (and to their followers unarguable) truths, I'd say it's exactly the concept of religion to mould society in to their 'truth' and precisely why it should be always utterly separate from the state.

but a capitalist system with any taxes for anything, does limit the ability of people to live a commune-type lifestyle. but on a side note, people living within any society are naturally oppressed to some degree by the norms and mores of society, just due tothe nature of peer pressure/similar concepts, so I think within any system, there's already this inherent oppression. not that i think it's an excuse for anything, just that it's the reality of the matter.

Surely there are different types of democracies, but does not democracy generally entail equal and basic civil and human rights, liberty, and justice? In this sense, I find it hard to believe a democracy with a state religion would be able to ensure these sorts of things in a decent manner. Which is not to say it's impossible, I suppose.

Edit: in reading, it seems a lot of these points are covered. Bravo, team.

No, democracy does not generally entail basic human rights, etc. Constitutional or liberal democracy does (and this is indeed what most democratic nations are), but that is not the same as democracy. Democracy strictly deals with sovereignty. This definition should suffice:

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Strictly speaking, a democracy is compatible with anything so long as the people will it. Democracy can be despotic, tyrannical, anarchic, etc, so long as it is chosen by the people.

Thus, we should not ask what democracy by its nature allows, because it allows virtually anything that does not remove the voting power from the people.