Ever since the dawn of Enlightenment, toleration has been considered one of the most solid bastions of social peace in liberal and pluralist civilization. Acknowledging and protecting freedom of religion, ideas and speech, the modern rule of law can be considered as a political-institutional as well as juridical fulfillment of what previously was only a hoped-for virtue: toleration. What does tolerating those who are different, those who think or act differently, really mean? Is toleration a form of resignation and indifference regards to the mistakes of others? Or is it rather a synonym for respect for and interest in diversity? Who is called upon to be tolerant? Individuals or institutions?

On May 26th, 27th and 28th Egyptians have voted to elect a successor to Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s president elected in 2012 and deposed by the army in July 2013. There are only two candidates; the now well-known general Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, and Hamdeen Sabahi, leader of the progressive Egyptian Popular Current, a pro-Nasser activist who opposed  Sadat and Mubarak, who had him imprisoned 17 times. In 2012, with 21.5 per cent of the votes, Sabahi came third behind Morsi and Ahmed Shafiq. He did not hesitate to criticise Morsi’s authoritarian shift, describing him as “a new Mubarak.” He has also expressed his disapproval of abuses of power by the transition government imposed by the army. Today, with the slogan “one of us” and a ‘left-wing’ election campaign, he is supported by important personalities in the world of culture such as Alaa Al Aswany and Khaled Youssef. The secular and ‘socialist’ Sabahi aims to obtain the votes of working class citizens and the young revolutionaries. However, few believe his liberal appeal has any chance at all of overcoming the electoral machine fielded by former general Al Sisi. Sabahi, however, is not giving up. He explains why in Azzurra Meringolo’s interview for Resetdoc.

With an eye on the upcoming European elections, Resetdoc reopens the debate on the European Union and its future with an essay by Jürgen Habermas, written a year ago when sociologist Wolfgang Streeck’s book Gekaufte Zeit (Buying Time) was published. Habermas’ essay marks the beginning of a true Europa-Streit, a controversy on Europe, in which the German philosopher accuses the European Left of having never moved beyond nostalgic positions and of not being able to firmly addressing the Right and the Centre’s populist trends. The essay is introduced by Luca Corchia, who summarizes the controversy between the two authors contextualizing it within the debate on Europe, which, although still defective in the large arenas of state and party politics, is instead spreading in magazines, newspapers and books throughout the continent.

Blasphemy, an insult addressed at God, a religion or its symbols, is once again an issue in many countries, even where it appeared to have been resolved. Why and in what forms? From Pakistan to the United States, from Europe to Jewish and Christian jurisprudence, the problems raised by blasphemy in the modern world are still many, and they do not only concern religion, but also politics, society and co-existence.

Global mobility, migrations and a growing cultural and religious diversity are shaping the identity of 21st century Europe. But many obstacles are still in place before European societies will become genuinely pluralist societies: in an age of economic turbulences, politics of fear, spreading populisms and new racisms, political imagination and democratic forces still need to be mobilized in order to break out of the trap of reciprocal rejection or misrecognition and the spiraling of negative feelings. Part of this enterprise can focus on understanding different facets of the trap itself, unraveling the nature of reactive and hostile identities, the political-mediatic creation of ‘exceptionalisms’ and the construction of so-called ‘communities of fear’ through the stigmatization and securitization of migrations.

With three essays from our Istanbul Seminars, Resetdoc carries on the debate on viable models for the coexistence of diversity. We believe that philosophical reflection on this topic is most helpful if developed before the trap of resentment and retaliation is cocked, let alone set off. Beate Roessler’s article addresses the fundamental problem for intercultural relations of how to conceive that flourishing of a culture (and persons within a culture) which then specific legal provisions or administrative policies may enhance or stifle. David Rasmussen revisits the notion of the political, while Fuat Keyman addresses these issues with reference to the centrality of the ‘Kurdish Question’ for the consolidation of Turkish Democracy.

With this summer issue of its Essays collection, Resetdoc presents to its readers the research and thoughts of three prominent intellectuals on the political transformations experienced  by Islam and its numerous interlocutors throughout history up to present time. Akeel Bilgrami focuses on the internal flaws of popular and pundit-instigated perspectives of the relationship between Western and Islamic public opinion as a ‘clash’ or a ‘conflict’, while José Casanova draws our attention to a fundamental difference between anti-Islamic xenophobia that is widespread in contemporary Europe and its counterpart in the U.S. Zaid Eyadat’s article analyses the constant presence of dialogue within the history of Islam and the ensuing exchange with Western culture.

Philosophical reflection on viable models for the coexistence of diversity is most helpful if developed before the trap of resentment and retaliation is cocked, let alone set off. A workable scheme for the cooperation of free and equal citizens affiliated with diverse and often rival cultural heritages can go a long way toward preventing resentment and the politics of fear from coming into being and gaining ground in the first place. Received models in this respect, however, need a constant updating and finetuning. Resetdoc wants to address this concern in a new chapter of its Essays-series.