Berkley Center

Previous JYAN participants have discussed the use of religion as political tool. This essay will attempt to elaborate on their comments by discussing both the general relationship between religion and politics and the particular case of Egypt. At its core, this is not a debate centered on any one religion or any one society—when Marx wrote that “religion is the opiate of the masses” he meant this in the broadest possible sense. We know, of course, that this is far too simplistic a conception of the relationship between religion and politics. While it is common for political movements to evoke religious symbols in order to gain traction among pious segments of society, religion often acts as a driver of political change. For example, in Latin America, the doctrine of liberation theology has been an important catalyst of the fight against poverty. Max Weber argued that Protestantism was the driving force behind the industrialization of Western Europe.

In the case of Egypt one can argue either side. The continued appeal of the Muslim Brotherhood is often evoked as an example of a religious movement creative of political change. The organization has strong backing from the poor and disempowered sectors of Egyptian society. Many would argue that it is Islam’'s focus on equality and charity which led to the creation and continued success of the Brotherhood as a political movement. On the other hand, it is also possible to argue that the relative strength of political Islam among the disadvantaged populations of the Middle East is simply the most socially acceptable framework for political action. The downfall of socialist ideology in the Middle East in recent decades was largely the result of its condemnation by state-controlled religious establishments throughout the region. Arab socialism was linked to the atheism of the Soviet Union and declared un-Islamic, thus depriving the region’'s impoverished masses of the most appropriate secular political outlet.

Some people claim that the Egyptian elites use religion as a political tool. I’'ll give a personal example to illustrate the point. I am currently studying at the American University in Cairo, where the Egyptian portion of the student body is comprised mainly of members of the social elites (children of high level civil servants, ministers, business owners, etc.). Several students I have spoken with espouse the idea that God decides what a person’'s place in society should be. A poor person was meant to be a poor person and a rich person was meant to be rich. This ideology provides religious justification for the lack of social welfare programs or effective education among the country’'s (numerous) poor. If it is God who decides what people’'s life chances are, then the political and economic elites are absolved of any moral obligation to help the have-nots in their country.

On the other hand, it is possible to argue that this ideology is not a consciously designed political tool but merely a belief in and of itself. The most blatant example of this phenomenon is the Hindu caste system, which been in place for thousands of years. It definitely serves a political purpose—to maintain socioeconomic structure and prevent social mobility—but it is impossible to prove that this institution was somehow created by the ruling castes to protect their place in society.

Now I'’ll get to the point. Religion serves a political purpose in every society in our world. In some instances we can claim that groups within society actively use religion as a political tool. However, it should be clear from the above discussion that it is impossible to prove that religion is being co-opted in this way. This is simply a chicken and egg scenario. We must forego debate over the “legitimacy” (or lack thereof) of political groups'’ relationship with religion and instead focus on the effects of their religiosity. It doesn'’t really matter whether the Muslim Brotherhood (or any other group) is a religious movement creative of political change or simply a political movement which has adopted religious symbols in order to succeed. The results are still the same, and we must look at how religious affiliation affects the popularity, efficacy, and goals of social and political movements.