C L O S E R

Swiss Minaret Ban or How Democracy, Secularism and Islamophobia threaten Democracy, Secularism and Religious Freedom

Posted on November 30th, 2009 by martijn.
Categories: ISIM/RU Research, Multiculti Issues, Public Islam.

It is widely believed that secular democracy is the best way of managing diversity in a country; it guarantees freedom, peaceful relations and conflicts managed in a political arena. So we like to believe. In Switzerland the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) organized a referendum wanting to ban the construction of minarets because they symbolise a ‘political-religious claim to power‘ having no ‘religious significance‘. A clear secularist statement not completely at odds with European secularism that does not ban all religious symbols from public life but only ostentatious claims that apparently do not fit the existing status quo. The SVP’s proposal was accepted by a majority of the voters except in four cantons (Swiss is a confederation). A clearly not so secularist statement because other religious groups have no such restrictions, which makes it double strange because in this way the Swiss have given Islam officially an exceptional status which is quite remarkable since no European country has done that (in the case of Islam).

The minaret ban may be considered as something extreme that does not obey an enlightenment logic, we can see the same considerations in the case of (proposed) bans on the burqa/niqab that are discussed in several European countries. First of all, it concerns non-Islamic politicians discussing what particular ‘Islamic’ features actually are. For some women for example a burqa/niqab is not a symbol but a command or recommendation from God. It does not signify ones belief, it is part of practicing that belief. Also a political party discussing a minaret having no religious significance but a symbol of a political-religious claim means defining a particular feature. Second, although the rise of a secularist voice in Europe does effect Christian groups as well, the burden is on Islam and not on other groups. Thirdly, following from the previous one, secularism seems to have become a defining feature of European nationalism wherein political islamic symbols are to be rejected from the public domain in order to safeguard a particular culture. Fourth, at the same time protests of Muslims (and other religious groups) against for example Fitna and the Muhammad Cartoons or the posters of the referendum are labelled as an attack on the freedom of expression, seen as a typical difference between Muslims and Europeans. This produces a remarkable paradox. In order to uphold the secularized European society as a freedom loving tolerant society and a homogenous cultural other is created and dismissed as a violent, intrusive outsider. The minaret ban, for the proponents anyway, is an expression of the paradox but also produces the same paradox and as such sustains it. The credo of being intolerant against the intolerant is the logical explanation for that paradox that in the Netherlands is also used by Wilders’ PVV who also pleas for such a referendum in the Netherlands as does the Danish People’s Party leader Kia Kjaersgaard. In order to sustain the images of the irrational, angry Muslim particular key symbols of Islam are frequently targeted as signifiers of intolerance, any negative reaction from the side of Muslims ‘prove’ their standpoint (just watch how people will respond to the negative reactions from Muslim communities the coming days).

Therefore yes, the Swiss minaret ban is extreme for Europe but it is only an extreme outcome of a logic that has been apparent in Europe for several years now and that certainly not limited to Switzerland or extreme right parties. On the other hand we should lose sight of major opposition among non-Muslim Europeans as well who, no matter what their stance is towards Islam, are very negative about this development and who fear that democracy and secularism will eat itself when it becomes mixed with an explosive combination of nationalism and islamophobia.

UPDATE
Orthodox Christian party SGP submitted a motion, following the Swiss ban on minarets, urging restraint in building minarets in the Netherlands. According to the SGP building of minarets and mosques increases polarisation in Dutch society and, contrary to church towers, minarets to not fit the ‘cultural landscape’ of the Netherlands, produce ‘alienation’ and negatively affect Dutch identity. SGP also opposes ostentatious satellite dishes, building large mosques and publicly sending the call for prayer and asks for restraint in those cases as well. The motion was supported by Wilders’ Party for Freedom and Verdonk’s Proud of the Netherlands; conservative liberal VVD withdrew their support at the last moment because, according to them, this is a matter for local councils. The rest of parliament (a majority) opposed and the motion was rejected.
As such an interesting coalition between an orthodox Christian party (the other two Christian parties are in the government and opposed), a conservative liberal party VVD (secular), a populist-nationalist party (Verdonk) (secular) and an extremist party PVV (Wilders) also secular. To be clear, three secular parties but with different opinions and definitions on what secularism is or should be.

UPDATE:

Note that the SGP already filed the motion before the Swiss referendum (thanks to A el M to point that out to me)

8 comments.