THE ROLE OF RELIGION AS A HEURISTIC IN DESCIDSION MAKING IN

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

(Assignment towards the fulfilment of the Continuous Assessment – 1 in the subject of

Company Law)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Manisha Mirdha LAKSHYA SHARMA
Assistant Professor Roll No 1904
Faculty of Law Semester: V. Section B
National Law University, Jodhpur B.A., LL.B. (HONS)

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

SUMMER SESSION

(JULY – NOVEMBER 2022)

 INTRODUCTION

Religion influences international politics in diverse ways. the foreign policies of the leaders
of theocratic states like Iran and Afghanistan are influenced by their religious views. Often
their foreign policies, and occasionally their domestic policies, have provoked inter- national
issues and situations that cannot be ignored. Religious rebellions like the one in Algeria and
ethno religious conflicts like those in Sri Lanka, the former Yugoslavia, the Kashmir
province of India, and Israel, to name just a few, all have international implications. Also, the
use of religion as a source of public legitimacy is highlighted by the influence of moral
appeals by religious leaders such as the pope and the Dalai Lama. Yet, with some notable
exceptions, the influence of religion has received comparatively little attention in
international relations (IR).1 Furthermore, when religion is addressed, it tends to be
addressed within the context of some other category such as institutions, organizations,
society, civilizations, or terrorism.2 Accordingly, the purpose of this essay is twofold. First, it
examines the question of why religion is often overlooked by policymakers and academics.
Second, it explores how religion influences international politics.

These sentiments are echoed in twentieth-century social sciences, including political science.
Especially in the 1950s and 1960s, political scientists believed that modernization would
reduce the political significance of primordial phenomena such as ethnicity and religion.8
Also, the formation of IR has been attributed to the belief that the era in which religion
caused war was over.9 These modes of thought continue to be influential even today at the
beginning of the twenty-first century.10 A prime example of this is that a recent edition of
Sociology of Religion was devoted to the debate over the influence of religion in modern
society. Like the argument that religion influences beliefs and behavior, the argument that
religion is a source of legitimacy is not a new one.

RELIGION AS AN INFLUENCE ON DECISIONMAKING

The assertion that religion can influence our views is not new or in dispute. Religion is often
part of people's worldviews and influences their perception of events and their actions. While
it is clear that some or even many individuals today do not give much weight to religion, it is
indisputable that there are those who do and that at least some policymakers fall into this
category. Most scholars who discuss the influence of religion on human beings argue that it
somehow influences how we think1. Rodney Stark and William Bain- bridge note that
sociologists of religion assume that "people almost universally possess a coherent,
overarching, and articulated 'Weltanschauung,' 'world,’ 'Perspective,' 'frame of reference,' that
is often based on religion. System consists of a cognitive social movements and describes the
"schemata of interpretation," organize experiences, and provide that not only do religions
find religion necessary to interpret bad things happen2. Even some trend of replacing religion
with beliefs. Durkheim defines and practices relative to sacred forbidden-beliefs and
practices Unity called a Church, all those connected religion with beliefs as the "opiate of the
masses" behavior. Several survey-based studies also find that religious affiliation influences
political attitudes and behavior. Among these findings: those who are religiously affiliated
tend to be more politically conservative than those who are not; Christians and Jews group
political issues into categories differently; in general, religiosity is inversely related to
domestic violence, but men who have more conservative religious views than their partners
are more likely to engage in domestic violence; the nature of one's religiosity is linked to
one's propensity toward conflict; religiosity and authoritarianism are linked; religious
fundamentalism is linked with prejudice against blacks, women, homosexuals, and
communist.3

There are two potential ways in which religious belief systems can influence international
politics. The first is that these belief systems can influence the outlook and behavior of
policymakers. Weber describes how this happens through a concept called psychological
premiums. He argues that religions place psychological premiums on actions that serve as
filters for evaluating how one should behave4. Richard Wentz maintains that these thought
beliefs are essential to our thought processes that challenges them, but we also will also
defend our belief system from outside challenges at all costs. Carsten Lausten and Ole
1
David Carment and Patrick James: "The International Politics of Ethnic Conflict: New Perspectives on Theory
and Policy," Global Society 11, No. 2 (1997), p. 207, and Wars in the Midst of Peace (Pittsburgh, Pa.:
University of Pittsburgh Press), pp. 2-3, 195-198.
2
Vendulka Kabalkova, "Towards an International Political Theology," Millennium 29, No. 3 (2000), pp. 682-
683.
3
R. Scott Appleby, Religious Fundamentalisms and Global Conflict (New York: Foreign Policy Association
Headline Series #301, 1994
4
For a discussion of the link between science and democracy see Karen T. Liftin, "Environment, Wealth, and
Authority: Global Climate Change and Emerging Modes of Legitimation," International Studies Review 2, No.
2 (2000)
Waever similarly argue that there belief systems result in because "religion deals with the
not be pragmatic on concerns Patrick James note that such threats to basic values are among
the causes of ethnic conflicts.5

Another excellent example of the influence of religious worldviews on policy is the Arab-
Israeli conflict in its manifestations during the past century . Both sides of the conflict have
made exclusive claims to the same territory , based at least partly on religion. This dispute
has led to several major wars that have involved superpowers and a series of terrorist attacks
and violent purges uprising . the conflict also has resulted in a "peace process” , which has
involved the United States and other major powers, the United Even if the peace process is
settlement, it is probable that there While some observers note that both sides have often
relied on secular ideologies to guide them, the religious claims of both sides cannot be
denied. The recent troubles that resulted after Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's visit in
September 2000 to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a site considered holy by both Jews and
Muslims, are a case in point. Furthermore, scholars like Anthony Smith trace the origins of
secular ideologies like nationalism to religion.6 It is also telling that many, if not most, of
those on both sides who object to the Arab-Israeli peace process are members of the religious
nationalist camps. This example also brings to light the second way religion can directly
influ- ence the decisions of policymakers via constraints placed on policymakers by widely
held beliefs within the population they represent. That is, even in auto- cratic governments,
policymakers would be unwise to make a decision that runs directly counter to some belief,
moral, or value that is widely and deeply held by their constituents. Thus both Israeli and
Arab leaders have had to weigh very carefully what their populations would accept when
making agreements.7 In another example of this phenomenon, while purely realist concerns
dictated that Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt would side with the United States in its
military opposition to Iraq during the Gulf War, religious concerns made the decision more
complicated. There was much opposition in the Arab world to an Islamic state siding with a
non-Islamic state against another Islamic state. There was also considerable opposition to
allowing a non-Muslim army on what was considered to be holy Islamic territory.8 Not only
do religious-based attitudes among constituents on specific issues constrain policymakers,
5
Carsten B. Laustsen and Ole Waever, "In Defense of Religion: Sacred Referent Objects for Securitization,"
Millennium 29, No. 3 (2000), p. 706.
6
Rodney Stark, "Secularization, R.I.P.," Sociology of Religion 60, No. 3 (1999)
7
S. N. Eisenstadt, "The Reconstruction of Religious Arenas in the Framework of 'Multiple Modernities,' "
Millennium 29, No. 3 (2000), pp. 601-603.
8
Shupe, "The Stubborn Persistence," pp. 20-24.
but religion also influences the political and cultural mediums in which they act. Several
studies have found that states with Islamic populations are disproportionally autocratic. Other
than the specific studies on this topic , few quantitative studies of religion’s influence on
political structure exist . nevertheless , it is clear that the connection between Islam and
autocracy is only the tip of the iceberg.9

While it is not clear that religion was ever solely a domestic issue, it is currently an issue that
crosses borders and accordingly is an international issue. There are several ways in which
religious issues currently cross borders. Although they are presented here as distinct
categories, there is much overlap among them. First, local religious and ethno religious
conflicts often reach international dimensions. There are numerous ways these conflicts can
spread across borders. In cases of ethno religious conflict, the populations involved often
have diasporas or established populations living in other states. These populations either will
support the rebelling minority or also can be inspired to rebel.10

Finally, while it is not strictly a way that religion crosses borders, no discussion of the
international implications of religion would be complete without addressing political Islam.
Huntington's claim that Islam is a serious potential threat to the West and one of the greatest
sources of violence is clearly debatable. Critics note that Islam is not the threat people often
believe it to be. Conflicts within Islam occur more often than conflicts between Islam and
other civilizations. Moreover, the enthusiasm for Islamic fundamentalism is warning, while
many Islamic fundamentalists advocate peaceful dialogue and under- standing rather than
violence as the preferred method for dealing with non Muslims. Whether Huntington or his
critics are correct will continued to be debated. Significantly, policymakers who tend to
believe Huntington's predictions are more disposed to perceive religious Muslims as enemies
than as friends. As a result, this fear of the spread of Islam, whether it is based in fact or not,
has the characteristics of a self-fulfilling prophecy that may either cause or exacerbate the
spread of conflicts involving political Islam across borders.11

CONCLUSION

9
Rubin,"Religion and International Affairs," pp. 22-23; Eisenstadt, "The Recon- struction of Religious Arenas,"
pp. 602-603.
10
Errol A. Henderson, "Culture States, and the Onset of War, 1882-(1997)
11
Rudolph J. Rummel, "Is Collective violence correlated with social pluralism?” journal of peace Research
34,No.2 (1997)
. Many scholars attest that in much of the Third World, the failure of secular governments-guided by secular
ideologies-has led to a legitimacy crisis that has facilitated or even enhanced the ability of religious movements to
oppose them. This legitimacy crisis has resulted in opposition movements and violent conflicts, such as the one in
Algeria, which have drawn considerable international attention. One of the earliest of these opposition movements
was successful in Iran, resulting in a theocratic state governed by leaders with overtly religious worldviews. The
examples of Iran and Algeria may be considered worst case scenarios, but they are not easily dismissed exceptions to
a generally secular international order. They are extreme cases of more common trends. Religious opposition
movements and/or interest groups, which seek to either replace or influence government policy, exist throughout the
world. Gurr's study of ethnic conflict lists 101 politically active ethnic minorities that are of different religions than
the dominant populations in their states and an additional 32 that are different denominations of the same religion.
Many policymakers are religious and it is likely that their religious, beliefs influence their actions . whether they truly
believe or not, they often find it useful to draw upon religions to justify their actions, which indicates that religion is a
source of legitimacy on the international stage. Furthermore, religion is often tied to other issues that distinctly
international politics. This discussion has noted the links between religion, nationalism, totalitarianism,
modernization, the origins of the westphalian state system, political regimes, political opinions and attitude ,ethnicity ,
ethnic cleaning, issues of identity, women's rights , population growth and the origins of the social sciences. Other
issues with international implications that have been linked elsewhere to religion include the politics of specified
states, the process of globalization ,terrorism , political culture, conflict management, environmentalism, personal
wealth and attitudes toward war and peace .

Despite this, the role religion plays in international relations is often over- looked. Perhaps the strongest indicator of this
role is that most of the references in this essay are drawn either from studies of topics other than international relations
or from works that do not directly address religion. While it is true that many case studies of individual international
events do address religion, it is clear that the more aggregate and theoretical studies, which contribute to and develop
the paradigms we use to understand international politics, tend to omit religion from the equation. This omission of
such an important factor that influences international politics in so many ways and on so many levels is detrimental to
the profession and should be addressed.