Presidential Prerogative or Arrogance?

Sec. Eduardo Ermita defended the President’s decision to appoint retired Court of Appeals Justice Lucenito N. Tagle and Malabon Regional Trial Court Judge Leonardo L. Leonida as Commission on Elections (Comelec) commissioners by saying that the President has the sole prerogative to choose officials for government posts. “It’s one to recommend, its one for the President to make her decision over something. In the end, it is the President who makes the final decision…That is the essence of presidential decision,” Mr. Ermita explained.

It will be recalled that civil society groups including former Ambassador Henrietta T. de Villa, chairman of the election watchdog Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting, have expressed disappointment with the appointment of Tagle and Leonida as they were not part of the list of persons they recommended to the President.

Malacanang’s defense is, of course, anchored on Art VII, Sec 16 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.”

Arrogance and Insensitivity

But is the president’s prerogative to appoint absolute? Obviously not. The constitution provides that such power to appoint shall be circumscribed by the power of Congress to give its consent to such appointments. Mr. Ermita, therefore, cannot simply dismiss criticisms from civil society by simply saying that it is “presidential prerogative.” This is because such executive power has to be understood within the context of the principle of separation of powers and the system of check and balance. The idea of separation of powers centers on the need to give the different branches equal but different powers to avoid placing too much power to one individual or group. The corollary system of check and balance on the other hand ensures that any of the branch of government can exercise its power to check possible abuses committed by the other departments. One can surmise therefore that the grant of powers to government comes with a grave concern about ts abuse. This is the particular value of a constitution: to limit the plenary powers of government.That is the essence of democracy, Mr. Secretary.

But beyond constitutionality, the Malacanang’s defense of the President’s recent appointments (including that of a defeated senatorial candidate) reflects the arrogance and callousness that have characterized this administration.

Everyone knows that serious questions about the credibility of the electoral process have been raised since the so-called “Hello Garci” scandal. This government knows that many of the destabilization attempts against it have been motivated by assertions that the President cheated during the 2004 elections. Civil society has not been remissed in reminding Mrs. Arroyo that she should appoint COMELEC commisioners who can at least ameliorate such negative impression. The chair of the electoral body, Justice Jose Melo has also admitted that the agency he heads suffer from a “credibility gap.” Knowing all these, one would think that anadministration, sensitive to public opinion and wanting to strengthen democratic institiutions, would at least appoint commissioners that will reflect the electoral reforms needed to restore the trust of the people towards the electoral process. But no.

What we have is an insensitive government that would rather display its arrogance by telling people that they can pretty much do anything they want. That is the message being sent here. Malacanang created a body to recommend to the president possible appointments to the COMELEC. After that body came up with a list of people with probity and unbesmirched character, what does government do? It ignored the list; appointed its own and defended it by saying it is their power to do so.

The appointees also came up with some sort of a defense: give us a chance; don’t prejudge us. Sorry sirs, we cannot afford to give you a chance. The upcoming ARMM elections and the crucial 2010 elections are simpy too critical to be giving anyone time to prove himself. And besides, civil society has given a long list of people who do not have to prove themselves; why would this government appoint people who begs to be given a chance to prove themselves? Will they resign if they fail? I doubt. We have to remember that COMELEC commissioners can only be removed by impeachment and with Congress being what it is that is virtually impossible. So we cannot just accept the appointment and hope that they do well.

The cliche is true: absolute power corrupts absolutely. But should it also cripple resistance?

Pimentel’s Federalism Proposal

I am reproducing below the speech of Sen. Nene Pimentel explaining his decision to file a resolution in the Senate calling for a shift to a federal system of government. This is, of course, not the first advocacy for federalism. But its significance lies in its timing and its messenger.

The issue of federalism is raised by Sen Pimentel amidst the continuing crisis in Philippine politics that has resulted in the people losing confidence in their government. The renewed call for federalism is also made two years before the next presidential elections of 2010 which different groups see as a potential watershed in terms of significant political reforms in the country.

Recent efforts to establish a federal Philippines have of course been derailed and hijacked by politicians who, at the last moment, dropped the federal agenda in favor of a shift to parliamentary system. Sen. Pimentel, although a veteran of Philippine politics, is increasingly seen as a statesman and therefore devoid of the unscrupulous motivations of past messengers.

Days after its filing, opponents of federalism have raised the usual arguments against it. Which is good. I hope this starts a genuine and impassioned debate on federalism. I will write a separate piece defending federalism against those arguments. But for now, here is Sen. Nene’s speech:

Federalizing the Philippines:The Final Solution within Reason

[Keynote address of Sen. Nene Pimentel at the seminar on Federalism in Carmona, Cavite on April 23, 2008]

First my thanks to Dr. Alex Brillantes, Dr. Simeon Ilago and Klaus Preschle and their organizations, the UP CLRG/NCPAG and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation for inviting me to share my thoughts on the proposal to federalize our country.

To save time, let me go straight to the proposal to adopt the federal system.

Seminal in ‘82

Our formal espousal of the proposal started when the PDP-Laban was organized in 1982 to provide our people a third way of getting out of the mess the country was in. Or, if you please, give them an alternative to both the dictatorship of President Marcos and the armed rebellions that opposed it.

The federal idea that we espoused was seminal in many respects.

We did not like the dictatorship and the concentration of government power that was implicit in it. Neither did we want to spill so much Filipino blood in the undertaking to oust Marcos from power.

Disperse power

We thought that the solution was to disperse power – political and economic – throughout the nation.

The most concrete way of doing it in our mind was to convert the country into a federal republic.

I will now take up with you the most recent form of our federal advocacy.

Invasive surgery

This advocacy is contained in a resolution that I prepared upon request by some of our colleagues in the Senate and in the House, some local government officials and friends from the NGO sector.

The 63-page resolution requires the revision of 14 of the existing 18 Articles of the Constitution and the addition of two new Articles.

To use the more picturesque terms of surgeons, the revision requires an invasive surgery into the constitutional structure of our body politic.

The surgical operation will create 11 Federal States out of the existing political subdivisions of the country and one federal administrative region.

Luzon States

Luzon will have four States, namely:

1. The Federal State of Northern Luzon;

2. The Federal State of Central Luzon;

3. The Federal State of Bicol, and

4. The Federal State of Southern Tagalog.

Metro-Manila will be converted into a Federal Administrative Region along the lines of a Washington, D.C., a New Delhi or a Kuala Lumpur.

Visayas States

The Visayas will have four federal States, namely:

1. The Federal State of Minparom;

2. Federal State of Eastern Visayas;

3. The Federal State of Central Visayas, and

4. The Federal State of Western Visayas.

Mindanao States

Mindanao will have three Federal States, namely:

1. The Federal State of Northern Mindanao;

2. The Federal State of Southern Mindanao, and

3. The Federal State of the BangsaMoro.

Briefly, the State boundaries will cut across the present regional boundaries.

We recommend that the States be constituted out of bigger political territories to provide the environment for competitiveness and sustainability rather than create States out provinces that in many instances might simply be too small to survive as a State.

For easy reference as to how the States are constituted, we have appended a copy of the Resolution to this discussion paper.

National Territory, defined

Please note that the Resolution defines the territory of the Federal Republic and unequivocally includes two previously ambiguously claimed islands, reefs or shoals.

Embraced as parts of the Federal State of Central Luzon are the Scarborough shoals and as parts of Minparom, the Kalayaan islands.

Seats of power, dispersed

The Resolution also disperses the seats of power of the major branches of government.

The executive department will hold offices in the Federal Administrative Region of Metro-Manila.

The legislative department will hold office in the Federal State of Central Visayas.

The judicial department will hold office in the Federal State of Northern Mindanao.

By so doing, the two other major geographical regions of the country, the Visayas and Mindanao will now fully appreciate that they are important parts – not merely appendices - of the Republic.

Legislative powers, shared

The legislative powers of the Republic are shared mainly by the law-making powers of the Federal Republic and the States. But the provincial, city, municipal and barangay powers and structures are basically left intact.

LGU revenue shares, increased

In terms of allocating the resources of the Republic, a formula is provided in the Resolution: 30% will go to the Federal Government and 70% to the States. Of the 70% accruing to the States, 30% will go the State governments, and 70% to the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.

In this formula, the shares of the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays will be bigger than what is currently provided for under the local government code.

Equalization Fund

There are many other new directions and opportunities provided for in the move to federalize the Republic.

To address the reality that not all the Federal States are born equal in terms of resources and opportunities, the Resolution provides for an equalization fund that will administered by the Federal Government to assist States in dire need of development funds.

Political & economic objectives

For purposes of our discussion and to enable our participants to air their concerns, let me begin to conclude this statement. Let me just add that as we had explained time and again, the federal system is meant to accomplish two major things:

1. Cause the speedy development of the entire country by unleashing the forces of competitiveness among the States, and

2. Dissipate the causes of rebellion in the country and particularly in Mindanao.

Allow me to underscore the fact that the move to federalize the country is not simply a ‘political’ undertaking it is also an economic effort. By creating 11 Federal States and by converting Metro-Manila as a federal administrative region, we immediately establish 12 centers of power, finance and development throughout the country.

Under the unitary system that has characterized the government for centuries we only had one center of power, finance and development: Metro-Manila.

Just & lasting redress

The federal proposal will hopefully provide a just and lasting redress of the grievances of the powerless and the neglected sectors of society, like the Moro peoples of Mindanao.

By federalizing the Republic, the States will hopefully be able to address the needs of their component sectors more readily.

And in the case of the Moro peoples, their own federal state would conceivably enable them to run their state government according to their customs and traditions subject of course to the norms of modern democratic governments.

Thank you for your kind indulgence.

Teaching to Transgress

i have been teaching since 1994. man, that’s 12 years. and to be honest, i still don’t know whether i did well or sucked big time.

i started out imitating the style of my favorite professors. as they say “you cannot give what you don’t have”. typical political science/law professor strategy: scare the shit out of your students with hellish recitation sessions, boatloads of readings and an unshakable arrogance. as i love to tell my students then, “suffering builds character”.

maybe i got tired of the routine or the devil talked to me in my sleep. but whatever the reason, i found myself critically examining my teaching style. is this working? am i helping students think critically for themselves? i mean, really think for themselves. not just mimic what i say or agree with my opinions. or am i just power tripping? satisfying my narcissistic tendencies?

it was then that i realized that to make young people think for themselves, i have to stop being a teacher. i have to remove that cloak of authority that tells them i’m always right. i have to allow them to undermine what i represented. i have to make them subversives. in other words, i have to make myself irrelevant.

it was difficult because it’s hard to let go of that much power. it’s not easy to trust other people to do things right. but really, can you teach critical thinking if you do not allow students to question you? others of course would say that young people need structure, they need discipline. but whose structure? this is the type of thinking that values conformity over autonomy. i just think it doesn’t make any sense. de quiros was right when he wrote ” school got in the way of my education, so i quit school”

i think learning should be liberalized from the control of THE “professor”. i think young people should push the limits of authority. i think they should transgress rather than follow. i think they should rebel rather than conform. they should dissent rather than agree. without struggle there is no progress. the more i teach, the less they learn.

but will this not create chaos? yes. and that’s good. structures are meant to be undermined. systems are meant to fall apart. order is overrated.

so while teachers are busy making students learn, students should be busy unlearning. they should create new visions, forge new alternatives and construct their own realities. its the only way to freedom.

Bangsa Moro Parliament files case before international human rights body

(From Samira Gutoc)

The Bangsa Moro Parliament rejects the finding of the military Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAGO) clearing the soldiers in the cold blood murder of innocent Muslims in Jolo Island in the Southern Philippines.

“The finding is expected. It is one of so many that we cannot really trust this military for its insensitivity to civilian justice and for its gross irresponsible partnership in preserving its chain of command, no matter the crime,”Dr. Firdausi Abbas, Secretary General of the Parliament said.

The Bangsa Moro Parliament fears that the military is now projecting its popularly perceived anti-Muslim program in its pursuit of known terrorists in the Southern Philippines, as manifested by its refusal to define who the Abu Sayyaf are while conducting its military operations in Muslim areas.

Seven civilians, all defenseless Muslims, including two children and a pregnant woman plus a government soldier were killed in the operation last February 4, 2008 in remote village in Maimbung, Sulu.

“The irony of it all,” the Parliament said, “the victim soldier who was gunned down was an MNLF integree, part of the implementation of the GRP-MNLF Final Peace Agreement of 1996 when the government signed with the Moro National Liberation Front the agreement to stop the war in Mindanao. The soldier was on a vacation. And to alert the assaulting military men, he shouted “papa alpha”, meaning that he was also an army man but just the same he was ignored and mercilessly pummeled down to death.”

The Bangsa Moro Parliament Committee on Justice conducted an inquiry of its own into the incident and found the military men involved in the murderous killing incident. It refuted the military that the victims were caught in a crossfire, saying that there was no such encounter between the government and the Abu Sayyaf but a plain cold bloodbath.

“The military’s hatred against the Muslims is now reaping its worst madness. It is the invisible bullet that overshadows peace in the Southern Philippines and this is the callous intangible that haunts President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in her propaganda against extrajudicial killings,” the Parliament said.

To give justice to our people, especially the families of the victims, the Bangsa Moro Parliament’s Committee on Justice will file a complaint with the International Commission on Human Rights against the AFP and the government.

Secretary of (Mis) Education

Education Secretary Jesli Lapus lamented how young students are being dragged into the political turmoil. “We will not allow political exercises in schools,” he declared, “Education must proceed uninterrupted and protected.” He was reacting to recent visits made by ZTE/NBN witness Jun Lozada to various schools in Metro Manila.

The sad thing about these statements is not so much that they are misplaced but that they come from no less than the secretary of education.

He will not allow political exercises in schools? But education IS a political act! The very essence of education is to transform individuals into critical and autonomous beings. Even Section 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says so: Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

“Education must proceed uninterrupted and protected,” he said. This is probably the most eloquent description of the sad state of Philippine education today: the view that education is simply confined to the school hours spent while inside a classroom. As I said in my previous blog, participation in the political realm, be it in the form of street rallies or attending campus seminars like the one of Lozada, is probably the best form of political education.

For crying out loud, let the kids get involved in political discussion. We always complain about the apathy of the youth and yet here we have students actively participating in a political issue and the secretary of education “reminds” them that they should stay inside their classrooms and complete the DepEd mandated hours per school year.

The reminder is obviously a reaction to the popularity of Lozada in his campus tours. It is a subtle attempt to subvert the truth. The secretary doesn’t realize that the solution to his problem is not to prevent Lozada from speaking before students, the solution, the democratic solution is to use the same venue to engage Lozada in a reasoned discourse. But hey, it’s probably too naive to expect reason from this administration. Strangely, I tend to agree with the pronouncement of former COMELEC chief Ben Abalos that he intends to do his own campus tours. I think schools should welcome him, listen to him and subject him to reasoned criticism. In fact, I think both Lozada and Abalos should go to campuises together. And let the young people decide for themselves. Again, that is political education.

But we know that will not happen. Because this administration has time and again avoided a situation where, God knows, the truth might come out. In the end, the reminder of Sec. Lapus isn’t really about following some bureaucratic memorandum on the required minimum hours for schools, it is the knee-jerk reaction of a government afraid of its own people; afraid that they may discover the truth. As William Blake said:”Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.” This government obviously doesn’t like a politicized people.

Politicizing the Young

Some people who have refused to join anti-Arroyo rallies have said that the street demonstrations are futile. “Wala din naman mangyayari d’yan! (Nothing will come out of these rallies!),” is the usual comment. What is the point of joining rallies if it will not achieve its purpose anyway, so the argument goes. Some have even rejected the very idea of people power: “What? People power na naman!?”

These sentiments are understandable but it is important to clarify certain issues.

First, if street demonstrations fail to meet its direct objective, i.e., make GMA step down from office, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the mobilizations have failed. The public outcry against the sitting government on the heels of the testimony of Jun Lozada, the participation of a cross section of Philippine society in mass actions, and the continued isolation of this corrupt and “evil” government are more than enough indicators of success. It is better of course if GMA resigns as a result of these protests but if she decides to hang on to power it should not be taken to mean as a defeat for those who participated in the rallies. Her clinging on to her post is more a reflection of her values than the success of the movement. She can probably finish her term, but what a lonely and paranoid term it will be! No one likes her except her family and those who benefited from her administration; her administration is in perpetual “holiday paranoia” (every time a major holiday nears she worries about mass actions against her or worse attempts to unseat her).

Second, at the very least street protests are a form of political education. One of the positive aspects of EDSA DOS and the current series of mass actions against GMA is the active participation of young Filipinos, particularly students. By joining these rallies, young Filipinos learn valuable lessons of democracy: active citizenship, that participation goes beyond elections. They also learn that the best lesson in political life is achieved not just within the corners of the classrooms or the confines of their curriculum but in active engagement in political matters.

Which brings me to the third, and to my mind, the most important point. Participation in these demonstrations politicizes the young in a way that they are exposed to the kind of politics that is empowering and truly democratic. I have always maintained that one of the reasons young people are perceived as apathetic is because they have a wrong notion of what politics is. They think that politics is dirty, that it is an arena populated by greedy, unscrupulous and corrupt politicians. They hear it everyday from their teachers, parents and the media. As a result they think that they should not be involved in a dirty business like politics. Hence their apathy.

Their participation in rallies introduces them to the idea that politics should not just be viewed from a myopic perspective; that politics does not refer to corrupt politicians. That is a perversion of politics. Politics is an arena for citizenship. It is a venue for citizens tosettle their differences and forge common visions. Hopefully, they also realize that politics is too complicated and important to be left to politicians. And that these mass actions are a way to reclaim that arena for citizens.

If politics is dirty, the solution is not to withdraw from it but to engage in it; to master it.B By attempting to suppress the truth GMA is unwittingly radicalizing the youth. This has happened in almost all revolutions around the world. But GMA, like Marcos, refuses to heed the lessons of history .

Good for us.

She is not my President!

“I am the President and no one else!”

This was Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s stern statement before friends and families amidst mounting calls for her to resign as a result of multiple corruption scandals that have plagued her administration. She doesn’t get it.

“She is not my president!”

GMA cannot claim to be the president if a great majority of Filipinos (as shown consistently by surveys) do not consider her as their president. She cannot be president if a majority of the people think that she stole the presidency. The most important ingredient of democracy is consent of the governed. And here clearly there is none.

This is also the reason why Gloria has retreated to arguing behind the cloak of the “rule of law.” She said that people should follow the constitution and let her finish her term until 2010. The only problem with that is she cannot finish a term which is not hers! She should not have even begun the term in the first place.

Let us get one thing clear. This is not mob rule. When people have differences with the policies of a legitimate president, I agree that one cannot just resort to ousting that president. The constitution provides for mechanisms and citizens’ rights that will allow them to seek redress of their grievances.

But the situation of GMA is different. The people are asking for her to step down not just because they disagree with her. In fact, in some instances, the people might actually agree with some of her policies. The point is beyond simple policy differences. The governed, the people are questioning her legitimacy; the very foundation of her claim to power.

GMA should remember that she grabbed power through extra-constitutional means, i.e., the people directly exercising their sovereignty by withdrawing their consent and support for then President Estrada. Now, the people are exercising the same.

Some people criticize our penchant for “people power.” But what can people do in a situation where the institutions of democracy have failed. You can only demand that people follow the democratic processes IF those processes are working. Let us not apply the standards of advanced democracies to a nation that can only be best described as a fragile one.

Besides, this probably the perfect opportunity for us to renew our spirit as a democratic people. Let us use this seemingly confusing situation to embolden ourselves to institute reforms so that we may not have to resort to this again in the future. But until those institutions are working for the people, people power will remain as the last refuge of the Filipinos.

GMA said that she is the president. But madam “president”, we are the people!

PCID CONDEMNS ATTACK ON CONGRESS, CALLS FOR RESOLVE AND CAUTION

The Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy (PCID) expresses its shock and condemnation over the deaths and injuries resulting from the explosion at the House of Representatives. The attack which initially appears to be a deliberate brutal act is a direct attack on one of the country’s democratic institutions and should be denounced by all peace-loving citizens.

No political end or belief system can justify such dastardly act.

We call on law enforcement authorities to exhaust all legal means to put the perpetrators to justice. We commiserate with the families of those who have been victimized by this brutal attack. We particularly mourn the death of a brother in faith, Basilan Representative Wahab Akbar who passed away as a result of the blast.

Occurring on the heels of the Glorietta blast and in the context of current political turmoil, the explosion will definitely add to the political instability the country is currently experiencing. More importantly, we call upon the media, politicians and other concerned parties to exercise caution in assigning blame to a particular group for the attack before a thorough investigation has been conducted. Let us not repeat the mistake of hurriedly blaming, arresting and incarcerating Muslims for all acts of terrorism (as many did after the Glorietta blast). Wrongly labeling or accusing a group as terrorists is as much a cowardly act as the attack on Congress itself.

We appeal to everyone to exercise sobriety and resolve. If the intent of this act is to sow fear, let us not be afraid. If the motive is to derail our resolve to fight corruption and injustice, let us be steadfast in our convictions.

Press Statement by the PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY November 14, 2007

PCID Secretariat (632)5326068

mkfi@pldtdsl.net

www.pcid.org.ph

Peace and Integration

In its continuing efforts to provide a voice for our marginalized Muslim brothers and sisters, the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy (PCID), through the assistance of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), launched the Islam and Democracy Media Forum last July. The monthly media roundtable discussions are aimed at providing a venue for the discussion of issues affecting Muslim communities and at the same time allow the media firsthand access to opinion makers, scholars, officials and other personalities deeply involved in Muslim issues.

For the month of November, Ms. Fatima Irene Rasul will present her paper on “peace and integration: lessons from the grp-mnlf experience”. The issue of reintegration is probably one of the most crucial phases in ensuring the success of the implementation of peace agreements. The Philippine Government and the MNLF considered the integration of the MNLF forces into the AFP and the PNP as the most successful aspect of the peace agreement. Lessons can be learned from its problems and the partial success with respect to the 1996 Peace Agreement between the government and the MNLF. Ms. Rasul will assess the state of integration of the MNLF combatants into the AFP – a crucial pillar of the 1996 Peace Agreement signed between the government and the MNLF. It will look into the status of the former MNLF fighters, how they have fared in the years following their absorption into the AFP, the costs and benefits of this process, and how this impacts on the overall picture of peace and development in Mindanao. With the pending completion of the peace talks with the other rebel group—the Moro Islamic Liberation Front—learning the lessons of the MNLF integration process becomes doubly significant.

In view of this, we would like to invite you to join the said forum which will be held on November 28, 2007 (Wednesday) starting 8:30 am at the Gabaldon Room of Club Filipino in San Juan City. Our secretariat will get in touch with your office to confirm your attendance. Should you have any inquiries please do not hesitate to contact us at 531-3522; 532-6058 (Telefax) or email at mkfi@pldtdsl.net

Economist: The new wars of religion

Here is an interesting editorial from The Economist on the relationship between politics and religion. While basic democratic principles dictate a clear separation of church and state, the article contends that a deeper study reveals that maintaining that schism is easier said than done. Especially in a Catjolic-dominated country as the Philippines

_____________________________________

Faith and politics

The new wars of religion
Nov 1st 2007
From The Economist print edition

Faith will unsettle politics everywhere this century; it will do so least when it is separated from the state

Illustration by Jon Berkley

Get article background

A RELIGIOUS fanatic feels persecuted, goes overseas to fight for his God and then returns home to attempt a bloody act of terrorism. Next week as Britons celebrate the capture of Guy Fawkes, a Catholic jihadist, under the Houses of Parliament in 1605, they might reflect how dismally modern the Gunpowder Plot and Europe’s wars of religion now seem.

Back in the 20th century, most Western politicians and intellectuals (and even some clerics) assumed religion was becoming marginal to public life; faith was largely treated as an irrelevance in foreign policy. Symptomatically, State Department diaries ignored Muslim holidays until the 1990s. In the 21st century, by contrast, religion is playing a central role. From Nigeria to Sri Lanka, from Chechnya to Baghdad, people have been slain in God’s name; and money and volunteers have poured into these regions. Once again, one of the world’s great religions has a bloody divide (this time it is Sunnis and Shias, not Catholics and Protestants). And once again zealotry seems all too relevant to foreign policy: America would surely not have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (and be thinking so actively of striking Iran) had 19 young Muslims not attacked New York and Washington.

It does not stop there. Outside Western Europe, religion has forced itself dramatically into the public square. In 1960 John Kennedy pleaded with Americans to treat his Catholicism as irrelevant; now a born-again Christian sits in the White House and his most likely Democrat replacement wants voters to know she prays. An Islamist party rules once-secular Turkey; Hindu nationalists may return to power in India’s next election; ever more children in Israel and Palestine are attending religious schools that tell them that God granted them the whole Holy Land. On present trends, China will become the world’s biggest Christian country—and perhaps its biggest Muslim one too. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, not usually a reliable authority on current affairs, got it right in an open letter to George Bush: “Whether we like it or not,” he wrote, “the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty.”
Gunpowder, treason and plot

How frightening (or inspiring) is this prospect? As our special report explains, the idea that religion has re-emerged in public life is to some extent an illusion. It never really went away—certainly not to the extent that French politicians and American college professors imagined. Its new power is mostly the consequence of two changes. The first is the failure of secular creeds: religion’s political comeback started during the 1970s, when faith in government everywhere was crumbling. Second, although some theocracies survive in the Islamic world, religion has returned to the stage as a much more democratic, individualistic affair: a bottom-up marketing success, surprisingly in tune with globalisation. Secularism was not as modern as many intellectuals imagined, but pluralism is. Free up religion and ardent believers and ardent atheists both do well.

From a classical liberal point of view, this multiplicity of sects is a good thing. Freedom of conscience is an axiom of liberal thought. If man is a theotropic beast, inclined to believe in a hereafter, it is surely better that he chooses his faith, rather than follows the one his government orders. But that makes religion a complicated force to deal with. In domestic policy, adults who choose to become Pentecostals, Orthodox Jews or Muslim fundamentalists are far less likely to forget those beliefs when it comes to the ballot box. The culture wars that America has grown used to may become a global phenomenon; expect fierce battles about science, in particular.

Abroad, yes, there is a chance of full-blown war of religion between states. A conflagration between Iran and Israel would, alas, be seen as a faith-based conflict by millions; so would war between India and Pakistan. But compared with Guy Fawkes’s time, when wars sprang from monarchs throwing their military might at others of different faiths, religious conflict today is the result as much of popular will as of state sponsorship: it is bottom-up, driven by volunteers not conscripts, their activities blessed by rogue preachers not popes, their fury mostly directed at apostates not competing civilisations. Ironically, America, the model for much choice-based religion, has often seemed stuck in the secular era, declaring war on state-sponsored terror, only to discover the main weapon of militant Islamism is often the ballot box.
Start praying now

For politicians doomed to deal with religion, two lessons stand out—one principled, the other pragmatic. The principle is that church and state are best kept separate. Subsidised religion has seldom made sense for either state or church: witness Europe’s empty pews. In some cases, separating the two is easy. In private, people can choose to believe that the world was created exactly 6,003 years ago, but teachers should not be allowed to teach children creationism as science. The state should not tell people whether they can wear headscarves, let alone ban “unauthorised” reincarnation (as China did recently in Tibet). But the line is not always easy to draw: this paper disapproves of publicly financed faith schools, especially ones that discriminate against non-believers, but it also believes in giving poor parents more choice—and in American cities the main alternative to public schools is Catholic ones.

The religion that invades the public square most overtly is Islam: it affords secular power the least respect, teaching that the primary unit of society is the umma, the international brotherhood of believers. At its most theocratic, it forces people to follow sharia laws, sometimes with barbaric penalties. Yet Islam can clearly co-exist with a modern liberal state. For all its failures in the Arab world, democracy has taken root in Malaysia and Indonesia. America’s Muslims worship freely and respect its secular constitution—a success the United States should make more of in its foreign policy. But the test case will be Turkey, a secular state currently ruled by Islamists whose progress is being watched with nervous attention.

The pragmatic lesson concerns those wars of religion. Partly because of their obsession with keeping church and state separate, Western powers (and religious leaders) have been too reluctant to look for faith-driven solutions to religious conflicts. Many of those struggles, notably the Middle East, began as secular tribal disputes. Now that they have a religious component they are much harder to solve: if God granted you the West Bank, you are less likely to trade it. “Inter-faith dialogue” may sound a wishy-washy concept; but it is a more realistic idea than presenting a secular peace to competing faiths without the backing of religious leaders. Priests and pastors condemned violence from both sides in Northern Ireland; that has not really happened in the Holy Land.

Atheists and agnostics hate the fact, but these days religion is an inescapable part of politics. Although it is not the state’s business “to make windows into men’s souls”, it is part of the government’s job to prevent grievances from stirring into bloodshed, and fanatics from guiding policy. But it isn’t easy. Catholics did not get back into Parliament for 224 years after the Gunpowder Plot. Unless politicians learn to take account of religious feelings and to draw a firm line between church and state, the new wars of religion may prove as intractable.