Why secular but illiberal governments are no guarantee of religious freedom

[rug]

By Kara Downey
Kara Downey is a PhD candidate at Stanford University who researches ethnic and sub-ethnic identity, authoritarian institutions, and democratization in Central Asia and the former Soviet Union.
February 28 at 10:00 am

In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, S. Frederick Starr argues that the countries of post-Soviet Central Asia are “experimenting with secular governments and free markets” and could thus serve as a “template” for political development and religious tolerance in the broader Muslim world. While Starr makes interesting points about Central Asia’s unique role in Islamic history, his interpretation of modern Central Asian governments’ approach to religion is flawed. What Starr fails to understand is that when it comes to securing the rights of citizens of all faiths to worship peacefully, the distinction between secular and non-secular government is less important than the distinction between liberal and repressive responses to religious expression. Central Asian leaders’ insistence on secular government and vocal opposition to “extremism” is not an indication of a liberal commitment to religious moderation; rather, it is part of a broader campaign of repression against any forms of assembly or expression outside of state control. Though Central Asia may have been beacon of religious tolerance in the distant past, the region’s current approach to religion does little to improve religious freedom or encourage moderate views, regularly violates the rights of its citizens, and is hardly worthy of emulation.

The governments of post-Soviet Central Asia receive some of the worst rankings for religious freedom in the world. The 2013 Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom flags Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan as countries of particular concern, along with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea (HT Nate Schenkkan). Kazakhstan also features prominently as a second-tier country of concern. Though Kyrgyzstan has maintained a somewhat more liberal attitude, a recent speech by President Almazbek Atambayev suggests that the winds might be changing. The Pew Research Center’s project on government restriction of religion also identifies Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan as having high levels and Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan as having very high levels (the worst possible score) of religious restrictions.

The practices in these countries that have sparked concern include banning religious apparel in public places; banning children from mosques; creating labyrinthine registration requirements that make it nearly impossible for religious groups to operate legally; and harassing and imprisoning those that the regime labels “extremists.” Not surprisingly, around a third of Muslim survey respondents in Kyrgyzstan (32 percent), Kazakhstan (32 percent), and Tajikistan (40 percent)–and well over half in Uzbekistan (61 percent, the highest level among the countries surveyed)–indicated that they did not feel free to practice their faith. These numbers are quite similar to those in the Middle Eastern countries sampled, which ranged from a high of 54 percent in Egypt and 52 percent in Iraq to a low of 12 percent in Morocco and 10 percent in Lebanon. The report also notes that Muslims in both Central Asia and the Middle East were more likely than respondents from other regions to indicate that members of other religions were not free to practice their faith. Based on this evidence, it is difficult to make the case that the Central Asian approach to religious policy is somehow conducive to freedom of religion.

Of course, leaders of these states justify their laws not on the grounds of religious tolerance, but by arguing that they are under threat from Islamic extremists. It is true that several violent attacks have occurred throughout the region over the past two decades. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (sometimes in conjunction with Hizb ut-Tahrir) has been accused of carrying out suicide bombings and armed attacks in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan in the late 1990s and early 2000s. A group called Jund al-Khilafa, which may or may not be affiliated with IMU, has been blamed for a more recent set of attacks in Kazakhstan. Islamist groups also played a role in Tajikistan’s 1992-1997 civil war. Central Asian governments insist that networks of radical Islamists are robust, and that were it not for their jailing of devout Muslims and strict regulation of religious activity, attacks would be far more frequent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/28/religious-repression-in-central-asia-secular-but-illiberal-governments-are-no-guarantee-of-religious-freedom/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

[Brettongarcia]

1. This almost makes the most important point, for the 21st century: atheist right wing is dangerous

When the right wing no longer believes in God? Then you have an amoral fascist.

On the other hand, liberals, liberal atheists, DO still have a moral code; one that demands respect for minorities and so forth.

[cbayer]

2. This is about the most over the top generalization I have ever read here.

Someone could be a conservative and an atheist and not be an amoral fascist.

Someone could also be a liberal and an atheist and still be a complete bigot when it comes to some other groups (like believers, for example).

This is the kind of extremism that makes me queasy.