Politics, Religion, and Protest: Thoughts On The Iranian Protests

I've been following what has been happening with the post-election protests in Iran, and, in the process, I've had some thoughts that I'd like to share here. First of all, I'm reminded of our recent U.S. election, and the passion and energy I saw so many people put forth during this democratic process. It awed and humbled me, and it filled me with pride in my nation. I'm also reminded of some other experiences and of some things I've learned when it comes to politics, religion, and protest.

In 1999, there were dramatic protests during that World Trade Organization (W.T.O.) meetings taking place in Seattle, WA. At the time, I was working in an office building in downtown Seattle which was connected to the Washington Convention Center building where the W.T.O. meetings were being held. This gave me a ringside seat to the events. I walked through lines of protesters to get to work. I watched the crowds grow more and more unruly and then begin to violently smash and break things and get into altercations with the police. One day, while my building was under emergency lock down, I witnessed, from my office windows, protesters being tear gassed, dragged along on the street and arrested. I went to work during the martial law that followed when guards in military uniform surrounded my building. I was stopped, briefly questioned and made to show picture i.d. on a public street corner, before I could cross into the barricaded city blocks to get to my office.

These protests led to violence and vandalism, followed by oppression and limits on personal freedom. Right or wrong, these limits were deemed necessary for public safety. I can't help but compare this experience with the protests in Iran where tear gas and arrests have come hand-in-hand with beatings and bullets.

The United States Constitution guarantees us the rights of peaceable assembly and peaceable protest. American citizens also have rights protecting religious freedoms. Sometimes, in this nation also founded on many Christian principles, the exercise of these freedoms feel like a delicate juggling act. There is a constitutionally mandated principle of separating church and state. This principle was intended for greater religious tolerance and to allow citizens to practice their faith without government interference. Thus, politics and religion are perceived as separate, often opposing, entities. Yet, there is no denying that the American demarcation between the two is not always clear. Our legislative sessions open with prayer and "In God We Trust" is printed on our currency. While the separation of church and state paves an easier path for religious diversity, ironically, it also makes it more difficult for us to grasp that, in many ways, politics and religion are inseparable.

For example, let us look at the non-violent protest used to obtain political freedoms by Gandhi and the Indian Nationalist Movement. Gandhi was Hindi, but he was also influenced a great deal by the religion of his mother, Jainism, which emphasizes doing harm to no living thing. He, himself, was as much a religious leader as he was a political leader, and his philosophy of non-violence was a spiritual practice as well as a political one. He believed in using moral persuasion to sway your opponents into seeing the injustice within their own laws and actions; in using love instead of violence to achieve social change. It was inspired thinking, and, as it turns out, very adaptable.

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. proved the flexibility of Gandhi's thinking by putting it into action in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. Christian biblical ideas such as the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as well as, "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemy" were demonstrated to be highly compatible with Gandhi's ideology. Without religion, the world would not have the philosophy of non-violent protest that we have today.

I took a class at the National University of Singapore (when I spent a semester there in college) on society, history and politics in South Asia. It focused on India, Pakistan and Bangladesh during the 19th & 20th centuries, and the professor who taught it was from Bangladesh. There is one thing that this professor said that I not only most remember from that class, but which has also altered my perspective on the relationship between religion and politics ever since. He said that it was often difficult for people in the Western World, particularly for Americans, to relate to the thinking of people in the non-Western World. He explained that this difficulty was due to the concept of church and state as separate and mostly incompatible. He argued that most of the world not only finds nothing incompatible between religion and politics, but most of the world does not perceive that there is a difference between religion and politics. When viewed through this lens, the post-election protests in Iran are about several things: the right to peaceable assembly and protest, the right to a fair, honest electoral process, and the right of the people to make political decisions based on their individual moral/spiritual/religious framework. The protesters are calling to Allah for assistance. They are asking for divine protection and divine guidance. They are putting into question where primary access to divine wisdom lies within Iran and within Islam. Does divine wisdom primarily reside within their leadership? Or is it primarily accessible through the exercise of each individual conscience?

What is happening in Iran is demonstrating that religion has not lost its place in the modern political world. Religion is having to adapt, as most everything in our lives is adapting, to fit together with the people in our modern world. Those faiths which don't adapt, even if only to some extent, have a tendency to dwindle away. The Iranian victims of the protest violence, for instance, are being perceived as more than political heroes. They are also being seen as religious martyrs.

I've heard questions regarding what kind of democratic system could exist within the Islamic religious framework? Are democracy and Islam, a religion which most values obedience to Allah, fundamentally incompatible? I don't think so. Democracy is about freedom to shape and operate government according to the will of the its people. If the people believe that their behaviors are acts which show obedience to Allah, then democracy fits in nicely with Islam.

Political protest has never really existed in a separate sphere from religion, despite ideological attempts to disassociate the two. I think my former professor was correct. No matter what words might be used to describe religion and politics, for most of the world, (even, it may be argued, for all of the world), religion is politics, and politics is religion.

Until I type again,
Kami