• Forum

Freedom of Choice in Central Asia
Chris ISTRATI, Cross-cultural Consultant, Aslan Alliance
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

IDEOLOGY AND REALPOLITIK: A NEW DIALECTIC

Religion and politics are a volatile mix. Taken alone, each can spoil a good dinner conversation. Together they are as explosive and unstable as nitroglycerin. At diplomatic cocktail parties the toxic brew of religion and politics can be as deadly as mixing one's drinks. A false move, a wrong statement, a shaky proposition and delicate negotiations that combine religion and politics can collapse under colliding worldviews.

When Henry Kissinger began to practice "realpolitik" as foreign policy adviser and then as Secretary of State, he effectively stripped ideology out of global foreign policy. The ideological differences between Soviet communism and American capitalism were filtered out of any decision-making and a muscular view of power politics was applied to foreign policy making.

The naked view of power meant that arms reductions talks took highest priority during the Cold War era, followed by trade talks in more recent administrations. The bully whip of "human rights" was not a foreign policy tool favored by Mr. Kissinger as it drew too much of its firepower from an ideology that was often vague and inconsistent. Mr. Kissinger preferred the big stick of military might to overshadow the negotiating table. His diplomatic successes were built on the avoidance of ideological issues and the offer of power and wealth in exchange for peace and security.

For all its merits in the field of foreign policy, the legacy of "realpolitik" has left a cadre of political and economics experts who are uncomfortable analyzing how belief systems and ideologies factor into international relations. After all, when you believe that power and money make the world go round, what possible need is there to introduce the notion of a "deus ex machina"?

It is therefore surprising to see a new interest among international relations analysts to explore the no-man's land where religion and politics share common boundaries. Foreign policy makers are waking up to the realization that religious believers can make strange bedfellows with political activists. Civil society builders trying to transition marginal post-communist societies into active global players are recognizing the role of religion in society even if they don't quite understand how to include faith into their master plans. Journalists reporting on political developments in Central Asia have also begun to research the complexities of Islamic theology.

THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN SOCIETY

The Islamic community has long examined the confluence of religion and politics as part of a core truth revealed in the Koran and reflected in the life of Mohammed. The western world began to split religion from politics during the Enlightenment, when the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, relegated faith and reason to separate spheres of reality. In a very ironic sense, the western world is rediscovering the role of religion in society and the power of faith in political life through the instruction of Muslim fundamentalists.

The division of authority between the religious and political spheres goes back to the social division between the chief and the shaman in tribal cultures. The authority of the priest and the king, the church and the state, the mitre and the sceptre, the ulema and the caliphate are at times brought together under one body or one head, while at other times kept separate under different social contracts that spell out the spheres of authority.

Religious authorities are often extensions of political powers such as in the state churches of England, Germany and Sweden, or among the official Muslim ulema of Uzbekistan. Political power can also be used to support religion such as in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where the state cooperates in the global expansion of the Islamic dawah, the message of Allah's final revelation through his prophet Muhammed.

In the history of the early Christian community, the relation between the state and the church alternated from state persecution of the church to state tolerance of its existence and practice. When the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine officially adopted Christianity as the state religion, theological conflicts became state politics.

In the Byzantine Empire, the Emperor appointed Greek Orthodox bishops under a regime known as Caesero-papism, while in the Holy Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Pope anointed kings and emperors. The feudal relationship between the Pope and the kings of Europe eventually deteriorated into the cultural movement known as the Protestant Reformation. Parliamentary and republican political bodies, often led by religious leaders, challenged the divine right of kings. Social contracts were drawn up throughout Europe to circumscribe the separate roles of the political magistrate and the religious magisterium. The framers of the American Constitution eventually adopted the concept of separation of church and state to limit the abuses and corruption of religion in league with worldly powers.

The union of religious and political authority has been tested at various historical periods. The Muslim caliphate effectively invested both political and religious authority in the dynastic successors of Mohammed. King Henry VIII in his break from Rome became the Defender of the Faith as well as the sovereign monarch of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Today, the Dalai Lama combines a political and religious role as the highest avatar of Tibetan Buddhism and the leader of Tibet's government in exile.

Islamic scholars have often divided on whether Islam and democracy can coexist. The need to examine this relationship more closely in Central Asia led to a spate of conferences on the subjects of "Religious Extremism in Central Asia," "Democracy and Religion," and "Islam and Human Rights," recently held in Washington, Osh, and Bishkek respectively. Even the Soros Foundation of Kyrgyzstan sponsored a conference in Bishkek in early June on "Civil Society, Modernization and Islam in Central Asia."

Most of these conferences exposed the bias of the western secular view that religion and politics should be kept separate. This view conflicts with the more traditional religious belief that faith embraces all facets of life. It also contrasts with the communist philosophy, practiced in the former Soviet Union and the present Peoples Republic of China, that religion must be eradicated from all social and political life.

And therein lies the root of the problem in Central Asia and other parts of the former Soviet Union: what should be the role of religion in the formation of a new society?

Who authorizes what is traditional and sanctioned by the state, or "non-traditional" and expunged from civil society? How should a political state relate to various religious confessions in a pluralistic society? How should the various religious confessions relate to each other in an open society? Which law should be adopted as normative and regulative for society, a secular law or a religious one: Common Law or Shar'ia Law? The relation of religion and politics extends into the very fabric of all societies, even into those that have strictly separated the two spheres of human behavior.

ISLAM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The conference on "Islam and Human Rights," took a very specific approach to the question of authority. Sponsored by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the UNESCO funded Chair of World Culture and Religious Studies of the International Relations Department of the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavonic University, the conference attempted to defend the historical record of Islam as a moderating influence in society, rather than as an extremist threat to the social order of Kyrgyzstan.

The negative perception of Islam, often propagated in the western media, was the reason for the defensive tone sometimes present in the conference discussions. However, the issue of how the media relates to religion and politics was not extensively addressed in the context of human rights. Freedom of speech and freedom of faith can sometimes clash, especially when journalists scoff at religious beliefs or betray biased perspectives in their objective reports.

The round table discussion at the "Islam and Human Rights" conference featured parliamentary deputies, jurists, students, religious practitioners, national security officials, and a representative of the State Commission on Religious Affairs. In addition, guest speakers included the Deputy Mufti of Kyrgyzstan, Lugmar Hajji, and a scholar, Dr. Galina Yemelianova, a postgraduate research fellow with the University of Birmingham's Centre for the Study of Islam & Christian-Muslim Relations.

Dr. Yemelianova spoke on the dangerous tendencies in the Muslim world of identifying Islam with ethnic nationalism. Although Islam as a social movement has always combined religious and political authority in the concepts of the "khalifat" and the "ulema," Islamic movements have become increasingly politically active, beginning with the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, and continuing through radical movements in Egypt, Lebanon, Algeria, Indonesia, and Kashmir, among many places.

Dr. Yemelianova gave interesting examples from her research on the development of Islamic ideologies within Tatarstan and Dagestan. She also contrasted the differences between the more moderate Islam practiced in Dagestan and Central Asia, historically influenced by a mystical Sufism, with the more politically active Wahhabism that led Chechnya to establish the short-lived Islamic Republic of Ikcheria. She also noted that Tatarstan was developing a more Tatar-flavored form of Islam that was in a sense unique.

She also pointed out that Wahhabism is a puritanical form of Islam adopted by Saudi Arabia's ruling elite in the 18th century. As a religious movement Wahhabi adherents seek to return nominal Muslims to a pure form of the faith. Hijacked as a political movement it becomes a weapon of social destabilization. Her presentation in effect introduced the many faces of Islam, contradicting the perception that Islam is a monolithic threat to the new world order.

Dr. Yemelianova pointed out the difficulty in fighting powerful Muslim extremist movements with their international links. In the case of "Hizbut Tahrir," their network includes an active center in London. According to Dr. Yemelianova, "Nobody knows who funds them. Everyone points to different Islamic propagation centers [in Islamic countries], but these centers point to sources in the USA and the UK. What is well-known is that it is a very rich organization and that their purpose is to destabilize western societies." (Interview with Leila Sapalaeva, "Delo," April 26, 2000).

Reports from national security officials at several conferences detailed the manner and extent in which Muslim religious extremists have recently made inroads into the Ferghana Valley, a traditional area of unrest and the recent scene of guerrilla activity. The extremists first attempt to shape popular opinion against the ruling authorities through literature and meetings. Then they seek to replace official religious and political leaders with those friendly to their movement. When democratic means are unavailable they resort to violence in order to overthrow the secular government and replace it with a theocratic one.

These are not new tactics. History teaches how important it is to protect democratic freedoms. One should not forget that Communists and Fascists once exploited democratic freedoms to win power. Once in power they dismantled democratic freedoms and instituted dictatorial rule. Hitler replaced the Weimar Republic with the Third Reich, Mao chased out the Nationalists from the Republic of China, and Lenin's Bolsheviks suppressed the Mensheviks in a bloody Civil War.

A. Sadabaev, a Ministry of National Security official of the Kyrgyz Republic, presented the case of an extremist religious-political organization called "Hizbut Tahrir," active in Osh and Jalal-abad. Despite evidence of their destabilizing tactics, he pointed out the difficulty of prosecuting this organization under present religious laws. He urged lawmakers to define the criminal extent of religious activity and to apply stricter measures against extremists who seek to destabilize society.

His appeal underscored the tension between state control of religion in order to protect national security and domestic stability, and the need to protect democratic rights of freedom of faith and conscience ensured in the Kyrgyz Constitution under several articles. Pressure to amend the present religious laws in Kyrgyzstan to restrict "non-traditional religions" and extremists continues to fuel parliamentary debates. Many "non-traditional" religious groups unaffiliated with Islam or Russian Orthodoxy fear that they will be branded as unwelcome extremists under new legislation.

None of the panelists mentioned the opposite side of the relationship between religion and politics. Concern for religious extremists attempting to influence the politics of Central Asia overshadowed the interference of Central Asian governments in local religious affairs. Government officials in Uzbekistan have closed down mosques in the Ferghana Valley and detained "sheikhs" that presented political opposition to President Islam Karimov.

In Turkmenistan, President-for-life Saparmurat Niyazov has cracked down on all religious groups, bulldozing a Seventh-Day Adventist church building, denying the registration of religious groups and restricting the right to assemble for religious purposes. He has even confined the leading Islamic leader of the country to internal exile for improperly translating "the sacred Koran into the Turkmen language." In a self-serving twist of authority, the Turkmenbashi has effectively anointed himself with the divine right to determine what is "sacred" literature.

According to Lugmar Hajji, the Deputy Mufti of Muslim Kyrgyzstan, Islam proclaims Allah's peace and mercy to all mankind. He pointed out that Shar'ia Law has protected human rights for 1400 years. Following the restructuring of the Soviet Union in 1991, Islam has enjoyed a renaissance in Kyrgyzstan. Pilgrimages to Mecca have increased. People are returning to their spiritual roots. In the last few years 1300 mosques have been built (most with funding from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey). Religious educational centers (madrassahs), have also been built, literature has been published, and religious leaders have been sent overseas to receive in-depth religious instruction. Today in Kyrgyzstan, Muslims have a full spectrum of rights and freedoms.

At one point in the round table discussion, a student asked the Deputy Mufti if Islam protected the rights of women. Images of the repression of women's rights to education in Taliban controlled Afghanistan came to mind in the question. While the Deputy Mufti assured the student that Islam holds women in the highest respect, the difference between the ideals of a religion and the common practice of those ideals threw a shadow across the discussions.

While all religions proclaim the highest virtues, when viewed historically, religious movements have left trails of tears and blood from Palestine to the Sudan and from Spain to Ireland. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadors, the Salem Witch Trials, the European religious wars, America's manifest destiny to wipe out the pagan red man's culture, have all stained the message of love incarnated in Jesus Christ. In contrast, the conference panelists acknowledged that devout God seekers and compassionate believers are found in all religions.

At another point, the Deputy Mufti was asked if he believed that Kyrgyzstan should become an Islamic state. His humorous reply was that, "We have nothing to build. We already have an Islamic state, because 85% of the population are Muslims." (Aida Tastanova, "Delo," April 26, 2000). Others quickly reminded the round table that Kyrgyzstan protects the rights of many confessions, officially numbering about 30, reflecting a plurality of religious views including atheists.

In actual fact, Islam protects religious tolerance under the concept of "dimmis" and the practice of "millets," the communities of other faiths who enjoy legal protection under Shar'ia Law. Islamic states have often been renowned for the extent to which they applied this protection. From the pluralistic societies of Moorish Toledo to the Abbasid Caliphate of Damascus and Bukhara, Christians, Jews and Muslims have often had the opportunity to live and work together in peace and prosperity.

At different periods, the territory of Kyrgyzstan has also enjoyed religious tolerance. The fields of the Chui Valley hold the memorials of Zoroastrian, Manichaean, Buddhist, and Nestorian Christian faiths. While the Kyrgyz people are considered a traditional nomadic Muslim people, their adoption of Islam came much later than the settled Uzbeks or Uyghurs. Some clans in the north only accepted Islam as late as the 1870s, after the Russian Tsar had defeated the Khokand Khanate. Ironically, many Kyrgyz had chosen to resist the Islam of their Uzbek feudal lords, but then chose to accept Islam to differentiate themselves from the Russian Orthodox.

The 19th century Kazakh explorer and scientist, Chokan Valikhanov observed that "all the Kyrgyz confess the Kyrgyz religion or, to be more precise, call themselves Muslims though not knowing . the dogmas of the faith." (John Anderson, "Religion, State and Society in the New Kyrgyzstan," Journal of Church and State, Winter 1999, quoting V. Mokrynin & V. Ploskikh, Istoria Kyrgyzstana, Bishkek, 1995, p. 240).

The more nominal Kyrgyz Muslims are also influenced by their traditional faith that includes belief in spirits, reverence for ancestors and nature, and an elaborate set of rituals, totems and taboos sometimes called "Folk Islam." The presence of an authentic Kyrgyz faith, enshrined in the Manas epos, underlies Islam and other "foreign" religions. It seemed a significant gesture that this Kyrgyz faith was the first presentation made at the conference on "Islam and Human Rights."

POST-SOVIET RECONSTRUCTION

The relation between religion and politics affects all civilizations, whether for the good or ill of society. Especially vulnerable are the newly independent, post-communist states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Their quest for direction following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has created a wave of change in almost every sphere of society. The process of "perestroika" brought about the collapse of a political and economic system already in a state of decay but did not find a new system to replace the old.

The hope that the alchemy of democracy and capitalism could bring about a new society in a new Commonwealth of Independent States brought in a flood of assorted carpetbaggers, consultants, venture capitalists, speculators and international experts. Plans and expensive projects proliferated with the aim of building new economic, political and social structures that could reshape the vast region of the former Soviet Union, including the states of Central Asia, into overnight democracies with thriving markets capable of feeding hungry masses.

Aided by international donors and creditors, a fragile democratization process did begin to unfold. At the beginning of the transition, new freedoms were tested by various social groups. Opposition political parties challenged governments that were composed of former Communist Party members. Independent media openly criticized political leaders and questioned the bureaucratic practices of an entrenched system. Entrepreneurs venturing into regional "free markets" faced competition from "Mafia" groups protected by powerful bosses and an arbitrary tax system.

Since 1991 a flood of religious groups also trailed the economists and entrepreneurs. Prophets, preachers and proselytizers invaded the region to fill the spiritual vacuum left by 70 years of official atheism. From Chechnya to Kyrgyzstan, various religious currents have swirled under unstable political winds.

Until recently, religious groups as varied as Wahhabis, Bahais, Baptists, Hare Krishnas and Jehovah Witnesses enjoyed free access to the souls of the region's populations. Many young people joined these new movements out of varied motivations. Faced with joblessness, drugs, poverty, and despair, some enlisted in these "foreign" religions eager to taste new freedoms and find new significance, others wanting employment and excitement.

While most of these religious groups sought to bring about the salvation of the individual and the transformation of society by peaceful means, some groups attempted this goal by coercion, subversion, and armed force. These shadowy groups have deep links with drug traffickers and international revolutionary groups.

Exploiting ethnic tensions and weaknesses in the social fabric, movements such as the Islamic Renaissance and the Islamic Party of Uzbekistan adopted religious language to justify nationalist goals. Using legal, democratic freedoms they advocated the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a theocratic state that restricts basic freedoms. When the law thwarted their goals they resorted to unlawful methods, such as kidnappings, robbery, and murder.

While militant Islam has received the most scrutiny, religious extremism is not restricted to Islam; nor is the fusion of religious beliefs, political aspirations, and machine guns exclusive to radical Muslims. In Myanmar, separatist Karen Christians wage guerrilla warfare against the Buddhist military junta. In Sri Lanka, a bloody civil war has raged for decades between Tamil Hindus and Singhalese Buddhists. In Northern Ireland, the feud between Catholics and Protestants has enlisted ethnic affiliations and political agendas for centuries.

Governments attempting to maintain stability and security against the threat of armed terrorists funded by the narcotics industry frequently found the need to infringe on fledgling freedoms. In some cases the need to restrict freedoms for the sake of security became opportunities to silence political opponents. President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan responded to an attempted assassination attempt with a wave of arrests that violated human rights.

Border closings to stop the flow of ideas, drugs, and arms also restricted freedom of movement. The arrest of newspaper editors and opposition candidates restricted freedoms of speech and the electoral process. The arrest of religious groups distributing literature in the bazaars of Osh and Jalal-abad restricted freedoms of conscience and speech.

DEMOCRACY AND RELIGION

Against this backdrop of political reconstruction, economic transition and social unrest in Central Asia, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation saw the need for public discourse. The "Democracy and Religion" conferences centered on the questions of power and authority, freedom and duty, rights and responsibility, liberty and restrictions.

Effectively, who has ultimate authority? Which power religious or political has priority in the social order? Who determines what is extremism and what is orthodox? Who frames the limits of religious expression? Is this an intra-confessional issue or a question for the state to decide?

On April 27-28, 2000, a conference on "Democracy and Religion" was held at the Dostuk Hotel in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Sponsored by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Organization for the Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), this conference followed a series that began in Andijan in October, 1999, Tashkent in January, 2000, and Osh in March, 2000.

The invasion of the Batken region of southern Kyrgyzstan by a group of armed terrorists in August 1999 sparked the first of these conferences. The shadowy threat of Islamic militants again massing after the spring thaw in the mountains above the Ferghana Valley, along the unguarded borders of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, continues to give urgency to the discussions on "Democracy and Religion".

The last "Democracy and Religion" conference in Bishkek was held in the aftermath of parliamentary elections that pitted opposition parties against the justice system of the Kyrgyz Republic. Harassment of journalists and newspaper editors from government tax authorities and judges also violated the freedom of speech incorporated into the Kyrgyz Constitution. As if to underline the relation between the freedom to choose one's faith and the freedom to choose one's leaders, the OSCE agreed to co-sponsor the conference on "Democracy and Religion," even as they began plans to arbiter talks between the government and the opposition.

THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE

The common ground between democracy and religion is the freedom of choice. The freedom to choose one's political representative and the freedom to follow one's conscience without coercion are both pillars of a free and open society. While totalitarian governments restrict the freedom to choose a leader or a way of life, controlling religions also abrogate the freedom of conscience for the individual.

While the theologies of Christianity and Islam both assert respectively that the sovereignty of God and the omnipotence of Allah control the destiny of humanity, there is also a paradoxical truth that allows the individual to have a free will. Both the Bible and the Koran teach that man is responsible for obeying or disobeying God's commands, even though God is ultimately responsible for predestining or determining all things, including the fate of the individual. The paradox of determinism and choice lies at the core of the human condition.

A persistent thread in the conference discussions was the affirmation that a society in the process of developing democratic structures and programs needs to protect the freedom of choice in the political process, in the public forum of information, ideas and markets, and in matters of conscience and faith. Freedom of choice is embedded in constitutional documents, including the US Constitution's Bill of Rights (Article 1), the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18), and the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (Article XII: Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech and Article XIII: Right to Freedom of Religion).

A social contract or covenant is needed between political, social and religious authorities to maintain the freedom of choice and to build society with harmony and order. A rule of law that respects the rights of minorities to choose their community direction while carrying out the democratic will of the majority is an ideal that western democracies aspire to and hold out as a model to the rest of the world.

An area of common interest at the round table discussion of the conference on "Democracy and Religion" was the need to address the social welfare of Kyrgyzstan. Many political leaders seem to consider social welfare as an undesirable alternative to feathering their own pockets. Political corruption in Kyrgyzstan has neglected the building up of the country's infrastructure as well as the social trust necessary to the creation of a strong body politick. Religious leaders have also been perceived as removed from the reality of

It is an axiom of western political science that a society weaves a stronger fabric when it provides a platform for political and social leaders, including religious leaders, to address social problems, such as poverty, prostitution, substance abuse, crime and family abuse. When these social problems are ignored, denied, or buried, the social fabric is weakened, leading to social instability, unrest and eventually open conflict between the "haves and have nots."

Governments that serve and protect the people and non-governmental organizations, including religious groups, that minister and care for the people can meet on mutual ground to solve social problems. To this end western aid programs have sought to propagate NGOs as necessary social building blocks in the absence of other social welfare organizations. However, they have mostly neglected cooperation with religious groups also working towards the common weal.

In this context, it is interesting to note that Dr. Kofi Anan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, inaugurated a social issues summit at St. Peter's Cathedral in Geneva in late June. Apparently, the United Nations, with its multiplicity of faiths and plurality of cultures acknowledges, or at least gives a token nod to the role of religion in dealing with the problems of modern society.

ELECTION, ETHICS, AND EDUCATION

In short, democracy and faith have these three common social goals: 1. Freedom of choice -- the protection of inviolable basic human rights: the freedom to follow conscience without coercion and the freedom to elect one's leaders. 2. Common community ethics -- the development of concern for human rights, for matters of justice, for the establishment of rule of law rather than force, and for the welfare of the poor and the sick. 3. Public education -- the need to raise up an electoral public sufficiently informed to make a wise decision and cast a vote requires education and free access to information.

In the sphere of religion, a free education addresses misunderstandings, stereotyping, and dangerous beliefs that result in social conflicts. Educated people capable of conducting their own quest for truth are less likely to fall prey to charlatans and false prophets. Education supports the development of a stronger society because constructive choices are made more frequently and freely.

Education is also needed to inform citizens about their ethical responsibilities and democratic duties. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "You cannot be ignorant and free." The education of citizens is a cornerstone of a free democracy. Education must be more than data storage and information accumulation. The ability to make an informed choice, to know right from wrong, to determine good from bad, to analyze a situation and make an appropriate critical evaluation for the whole, that is what makes for strong public leadership in a free and open society. In order to withstand both internal and external threats to freedoms, democratic societies must commit to free education, free speech, free faith, and the freedom to choose one's leaders.

The role of the media in a free and open society cannot be minimized. The historical record shows that newspapers came into their own as voices of political parties and political philosophies. "In the 19th century, when newspapers developed around political parties, people became educated about national politics through a partisan-driven press. Then, early in the 20th century, radio began to have a profound impact, which was soon dwarfed by the power of television." P. 60, "Bigger than TV itself," Mike McCurry, Inc., vol 22, issue 7.

The media is an important pillar in the building of society that supports the freedom of choice and informs the educational process. Journalists and the media can serve the building of a new society by reporting accurately on the social work of religious organizations and by informing fairly on the democratic process of government.

Schools, newspapers, television, radio, churches, mosques, temples, community centers, and political leaders all need to teach by example not to lie, cheat, steal, abuse, oppress or murder. With democratic freedoms come civil responsibilities. The freedom of conscience is closely linked to the freedom of speech. Both have responsibilities tied to their liberties. The freedom to believe cannot infringe on another's rights of faith. Freedom of speech cannot libel or slander or misrepresent.

With religious tolerance as a foundation for social stability, a common ethical framework can avoid the slippery slope of relativity that makes one man's truth another man's lie. A common ethical framework agreed upon by a plurality of religious confessions and social organizations and endorsed by a rule of law can bring together people of conscience to tackle the big issues facing a society. The role of the state in a democracy should be seen as preserving a level playing field for political parties and religious confessions to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Several participants in the discussion suggested that more, not fewer, educational facilities for religious instruction needed to be developed. Religious leaders need to be trained with a commitment to maintain the peace and order of society, but without becoming tools of a manipulative state. The concept of separation of church and state working in cooperation under a divinely sanctioned social contract also needs to be part of the education for the citizens of a democracy. Several religious leaders at the conference bemoaned the lack of an educated religious cadre in the country, while others reminded the participants that during the Soviet regime members of religious confessions could not attend the state schools.

PLURALITY AND SOCIAL UNITY

A hallmark of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation sponsored-conferences has been the presence of religious leaders of different confessions gathering at the same table as government representatives, academics and journalists. The conference in Andijan featured journalists from Kyrgyz and Uzbek media agencies meeting for the first time to discuss their varied viewpoints on the regional "hot topic" of religious extremism.

One of the most interesting moments at the Osh conference was a panel moderated by a representative of the Kyrgyz Republic Committee of Religious Affairs. The panel consisted of representatives of the local mosque and pastors of the local evangelical churches. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church were not present as they were busy fasting at the time of the conference.

While the Muslims of the official mosque of Osh presented a desire for religious tolerance, claiming that their religion respects Jesus as a prophet honored in the Koran, the evangelical Christians confessed that their faith compels them to share the love of God that brings spiritual peace to men, but in doing so they did not intend to malign the name of Muhammed.

Every religion claims exclusive access to the truth, not brooking competition and persecuting rivals under the labels of heresy, if traitors from within, and infidels if enemies from without. Ecumenicals often attempt to create points of agreement by majoring on the ethical commonalities adhered to by most major world religions, and by glossing over the core, distinctive doctrines of each religion.

While Jews and Christians do not accept Mohammed as God's last and authoritative prophet, Jews and Muslims cannot accept Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world who died for the sins of mankind, or as the incarnate Son of a Trinitarian God. Muslims and Christians on the other hand agree that their respective beliefs complete God's revelations first given to the Jews. Unlike the non-proselytizing Jews, Muslims and Christians also agree that their respective messages are of universal importance and must be broadcast to all mankind. Conflict between the evangel and the dawah is inevitable where these messages cross paths in misunderstandings or are held hostage by radicals with political agendas.

The common ground between Muslims and Christians in Osh was very fragile, forged by the threat of militant extremists using Wahabbi puritanism for political gain, and tempered by the benign presence of the Committee of Religious Affairs representative. However, the fact that the Muslims were Uzbeks and the Christians were Russians allowed that the differences in religion represented ethnic identities that needed to coexist in harmony in a relatively small community.

Had the Christians been ethnic Kyrgyz or Uzbeks there might have been more concern from the Muslim leaders that their community of faith was being violated by an usurping religion. Whether the Kyrgyz Republic will tolerate this limit of religious freedom, whether it will register an ethnically Kyrgyz Christian church, or whether it will allow conversions from Islam to Christianity if it threatened social stability is still a question to be decided.

In Central Asia, religious tolerance stops at the borders with China, Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. While Islam allows for freedom of choice within its own community, and traditionally respects religious tolerance, it does not allow for conversions from Islam to another religious faith. Conversion is treason to Allah and is punishable under Shar'ia law by death, exile or ostracism from the "ummah," the community of the faithful.

The plurality of religious confessions in Kyrgyzstan was again on display in Bishkek at the panel discussion on the second day of the "Democracy and Religion" conference. As if running for political office in a perfect democracy, the religious leaders presented their platforms with mutual respect for each other.

The Deputy Mufti of Muslim Kyrgyzstan rubbed shoulders with the Pentecostal Bishop of Tokmak, who sat opposite one of the Fathers of the Russian Orthodox Church, who was providentially celebrating Good Friday. The Baptist minister sat next to the Lutheran pastor; the independent preacher and the Seventh Day Adventist elder faced each other across the table. Presiding over the proceedings was the representative of the State Commission for Religious Affairs in Kyrgyzstan.

The realization that freedom of faith was being stamped out in Turkmenistan, restricted in Russia, limited in Uzbekistan, and controlled in China, provided the backdrop to the conference. The growing threat of religious extremism in the Ferghana Valley underscored the discussions.

The need to crack down on extremists who use terror tactics was balanced by the need to preserve freedom of faith in a free, open, democratic society. The need to amend the existing religious laws to provide teeth to the security forces combating religious extremism was balanced by the need to keep the state from exercising dictatorial control over conscience. Both the Baptist minister and the Muslim Mufti remembered the extent to which their followers were persecuted during the Soviet regime.

One of the outstanding resolutions of this conference was the agreement that the leaders of the respective faiths needed to come together to support freedom of religion in Kyrgyzstan. One of the participants proposed the idea of an ecumenical council, while others agreed that the religious leaders needed a forum to address their common concerns and resolve their conflicting differences.

Participants of the conference were invited to sign the Tashkent Resolution. This document was first drafted on November 5, 1999, at the "International Inter-religious Political Forum-Dialogue: Religion and Democracy," held in Tashkent to express "inter-religious solidarity in the struggle against inter-ethnic terrorism and extremism." The importance of the Tashkent Resolution centers on the solidarity between religious, political and media representatives rallied against an enemy of the state.

According to Secretary-of-State Madeleine Albright: A democratic and open society will provide the best defense against extremism and terrorism, and the most hospitable environment for the transition to a prosperous modern market economy.

The legacy of the Soviet era will be difficult to overcome; these transitions take time; but that should not distract anyone from this region's great potential. We all need to see beyond present problems to imagine the possibilities for the future.

And at the same time, we need to remember some eternal verities.

The world and technology change. But -- as Ibn Sina understood -- the nature of wisdom does not. It is found in knowledge, which leads to understanding, which produces tolerance, which makes a free and democratic society possible. And there is nothing a truly free and democratic society cannot do.

You have started down the road to building such a society. The road is long, but the directions are clear. And the United States is prepared to walk with you along the way." (Madeleine Albright, in a speech delivered in Tashkent, Uzbekistan on April 17, 2000)

Here is the essential philosophy of the western world: the belief that democracy will create domestic stability and economic prosperity, that a strategic plan includes envisioning the future, and that the cultivation of wisdom and knowledge produces understanding, tolerance and a free society. The search for wisdom through knowledge also implies a commitment to public education in a free society.

Whether this western branch can be grafted onto an eastern root is a question for the future. The history of Central Asia shows a remarkable ability to assimilate cultures and absorb empires while still retaining enduring ethnic identities and the social patterns of nomads and settlers. The current "Great Game" over oil, strategic resources and influence is also played out against the backdrop of ideological struggles: Islam and Christianity, communism and capitalism, empire-building and ethnic separatism, dictatorship and democracy, control and choice, restriction and freedom.

As if to seal the spirit of cooperation between civic, political, academic, and religious leaders, the "Democracy and Religion" conference ended with a banquet. Seated around the table of tolerant plurality, the citizens of a democratic society enjoyed the fruits of harmony and peace. Dialogue is the basis of social trust, and trust is the glue that holds a society together. Like canaries in a coal mine, the freedoms of choice, encompassing free speech, free faith, free elections and free markets, sing happily when all is well with democracy. When the canaries are silent, democracy suffocates under the burden of tyranny.

The Konrad Adenauer Foundation needs to be commended for hosting this important public discourse. The discussion on "Democracy and Religion" needs to continue, not only to combat the threat of extremism, but also to build a stronger society in the Kyrgyz Republic. The disappointments of the Kyrgyz parliamentary elections can be redeemed by the continuing commitment to protect the freedoms of choice in Kyrgyzstan. This mountain republic can still become the model of a prosperous democracy in Central Asia, an island of choice in a sea of closing options, sham elections and the repressive rule of khans, padishahs, and sultans.

July 13, 2000, christrati@xc.org