Former Italian prime minister Giuliano Amato is a member of the Board of Governors of Reset-Dialogues on Civilizations
After the Swiss popular initiative against the construction of minarets, somebody wrote: ‚It is possible to kill a democracy by democratic means.’ That phrase is too strong, and I personally am of the opinion that democracy in Switzerland is too sturdy to be killed off in this fashion. But it is true that it has been damaged by the initiative. I ask myself how it can be called democratic that minorities’ rights can be determined by a modus which in itself is based on majorities such as a popular initiative. I ask this question now of all times, in an era of modern history in which in both politics as well as the public sphere, rational debates have been replaced by the emotional exchange of opinions, and what is called in English ‘deliberative democracy’ is sorely lacking.
A line of argumentation often heard in the context of this popular initiative was that ‚Muslims’ religious rights can only be fully granted after Christians’ religious rights have been recognized in predominantly Muslim countries’ – but surely this is not in accord with our basic democratic tenets. It is true that these rights are recognized in some Islamic countries and not recognized in other, authoritarian states. But our democracies would blatantly disown their identity and call their own principles into question vis-à-vis any regime on this planet if they let the principle of mutuality determine if they maintain their own principles or not.
In their own eyes as well as in the eyes of the world, democracies have a mission to fulfill: they have to build societies whose fundaments are mutual acceptance of their ethical and religious components. This is what is written in their constitutions and in the international treaties which they have solemnly and jointly decreed. In these treaties, basic rights have been laid down which do not relate to the citizens as such nor to those of either one or another religion but to the ‘individual’. This holds true not only in the European Union; the same is stated in the European Convention on Human Rights which all of our states have joined.
It is not easy building open societies, and it certainly is more than just a question of law – it is also a question of culture. In order to fulfill this mission, not only do the majorities have to accept their own responsibilities, but likewise the minorities as well as those who have joined us last. It is a ‚two ways process’, as it is referred to in many European documents. But this is exactly why denying those minorities the permission to contribute with their places of worship to our cities’ life and shape is not just a signal of rejection but provokes reactions that arouse the exact opposite of mutual acceptance, and thus of an open society.
If, for example, someone argues that not only the minaret’s profile disturbs the landscape but that it is the place where our peace is disturbed through the electronically enhanced muezzin’s call to prayer, then I would say that the non-Muslim majority has to lay claim to and defend its right to peace and should enforce a fair agreement. This is what some German politicians have done, thus contributing to a desirable, more peaceful communal living. Non-believers should never take religious faith as a reason to discriminate against others. For believers who see in God the highest source of peace and who honor deity for having created us in diverse variety, it would be a major contradiction to take this variety as cause for social ostracism. Falling for such a contradiction, then, is one of the worst ways of denying God.
What about the right to justified self-defense? Is the argument that Islam is an ‚aggressive religion’ that teaches violence a basis for limiting the right to freedom of religion? No, this is no legitimate justification but a delusion which is based on a momentous distortion of Islam; it is a mistake to think Islam is the same thing as its fanatical and fundamentalist excesses, and to confuse it with them.
This is the text of the paper the author presented at the conference “After the Ban on Minarets: The Open Society and Islam” organized by ResetDoc and UFSP Asia and Europe and held at Zurich University on Wednesday November 17th 2010.