European Liberal Forum / Forum Libéral Européen

August 18 2008
Draft Final report on

A liberal contribution to a common European civic identity

By Giulio Ercolessi and Ingemund Hägg

The project and the report

The project “A liberal contribution to a common European civic identity” is described as follows. “To explore the common aspects of our European identity, particularly our civic identity, which we believe is first and foremost based on human rights and democracy as a shared background. We expect that this discussion will have a strong connection to the peaceful development of Europe and its member states. The idea is to (i) define a principle position with regard to key questions and (ii) link the principles to specific policy fields, such as education and integration.”

The report is structured in the following way. The introductory section deals with the setting for the European identity issues. We then shortly discuss some basic concepts. We identify necessary conditions for a common European civic identity. Next we discuss eight frequent misunderstandings about secularism and secular state and institutions. Finally we propose a number of policy implications. The seminar paper contributions will be available on the ELF web site.

We who have written this report could not have done it without contributions from all the knowledgeable speakers, the papers and the active participants in the seminars. We want to express our thanks to them all. The analysis and the conclusions and policy implications are the sole responsibility of ourselves.

Introduction

Is it possible for Europe, and for Europe’s principles, values and interests, to exercise any influence in today’s global world policies? Is it possible for Europe to become a political global actor without sharing a common European identity? What kind of identity might Europeans have in common, upon which they could build a political subjectivity? How does the religious and cultural pluralism that is typical of contemporary Europe play in this “Europe-building” process? Is the liberal tradition of separation between churches and state, faith and public institutions, still an asset, a necessary one in our pluralistic societies, or an obsolete tool?

Member organizations of the European Liberal Forum have been discussing these issues for two years in a series of meetings and seminars. Our liberal family is historically more committed than others to European integration and to the promotion and enhancement of individual human rights. But, as we realized throughout these events, different historical national traditions suggest slightly different approaches and sensitivity.

We perhaps knew better what we were as Europeans when we were faced by the “Great Other”, the Soviet block (or, previously, when liberal democracy was assaulted by fascism). Nowadays we have to face the new and more confusing challenges of the global world: the new pluralism brought inside our societies by education, freedom in the choice of individual life-styles, and by immigration; and we should be committed to preserve our open societies within this increasingly pluralistic environment

At the meeting held in connection with the ELDR congress in October 2006 in Bucharest, we drafted our view in a paper that was submitted to a lively discussion and largely although not unanimously supported by those attending.

We focused on two ideas in particular.

First, if the historical individual European nation-states can no longer play the same role they have exercised in a world where Europe was undoubtedly the leading power, what could be the new subject able to express a European voice? This in not just a matter of political institutions or constitutional rules: it is a matter of political persuasion, decision and will. The present crisis of the European integration project is also due to the lack of awareness among European citizens and political classes about what constitutes a common European identity upon which a European political subject could be convincingly built. We think that this common identity can be, to a large extent, basically provided by the great heritage of European liberalism. Europe could never be based upon ethnic unity (as “invented traditions” have successfully pretended in the past for individual countries – but it was in a different, less sophisticated, less demanding and even more violent world), nor upon a homogeneous linguistic heritage, or uniform cultural behaviours that no longer exist even inside our individual countries, increasingly pluralistic as they are growing today. But we share, in our laws, in our constitutions, hopefully even settled down in our customs and cultural anthropology (despite recurring challenges and the surviving regional differences), a common civic character, that is sometimes better perceived looking at liberal and democratic Europe from outside. This civic identity has much to do with the respect for the individual, his or her dignity, freedom of choice and right to pursuit his or her goals in his or her own way

Although we would like these principles and values to be universally shared, although we attach them a universal vocation, they are deeply rooted in the historical development of the European liberal tradition, and our countries’ civic culture is probably still the most demanding in this domain.

More and more, such a common civic identity is proving to be not only the core of our values and principles, but also the only possible basis for more cohesive and fruitful developments inside each of our countries.

The second main point concerns what consequences pluralism, and especially religious and cultural diversities, have in the shaping of civic identities.

Despite the vows of populist politicians, increased diversity is the necessary consequence of life in free and open societies. That also applies to individual beliefs.

We no longer live in religiously homogeneous societies, provided we ever did. Secularization has made religious belief a personal choice, not an ascribed identity given with birth once and for ever. And immigration from countries with different religious traditions just enhance that inherent religious pluralism. Different faiths and unbelief must be regarded as equally respectable options also by the political establishment.

In our opinion, the increased, and increasing, cultural, philosophical and religious diversity of European societies, far from making separation obsolete, has strengthened the reasons and the soundness of the traditional liberal idea that the strictest possible religious neutrality of public institutions is a guarantee for religious freedom – that is, the freedom to practice or not to practice, to join or to reject any form of religious or non-religious belief. Political religious neutrality is the only possible tool to provide equal respect and equal social dignity for every single citizen, believers and non-believers alike.

And it is also the most effective tool to protect the rights of individuals, whose religious freedom could be put at jeopardy by their family or community, or who could be discriminated against for religious reasons because their ascribed identity or personal nature or life-style do not comply with the requirements, the expectations or the demands of religious leaders, neighbours or relatives.

As such, religious neutrality also represents the best possible strategy to cope with one of the most important tasks of our time: integrating in the values and principles of liberal democracy, of individual human rights, of the rule of law, at the same time our increasingly diverse autochthonous fellow citizens and our new fellow European citizens who come from different cultural traditions or are the offspring of the immigration, who must be recognized as entitled as we are to have their freedom of belief fully guaranteed, irrespective of their ancestral origins.

Inter-religious dialogue is obviously welcome, but civil society, not public institutions, should be its natural arena. Any participation in such dialogues by public institutions would inevitably result in a form of discrimination, as it would imply recognising some religious movements and not others. Most of all, we think it should never be a substitute for integration policies.

Identity, state / civil society, secularism and related concepts

A number of problematic concepts are involved in the project, not easy to be defined. In this section briefly discuss some of the more basic concepts. Deeper discussions can be found in other parts of this report and in the attached papers.

First, identity is a problematic concept. We can draw a distinction between individual identities and collective identities, and between ascribed and chosen components of such identities.

Each individual’s identity has different components. Some of them are ascribed to the individual concerned: that is, they are not the result of a personal choice, such as birthplace, family of origin, genetic code, sex, age, physical characteristics, possible disabilities. Other parts of the individual identity must be recognized as matter of entirely personal choice, such as cultural and political orientation, religious or non-religious belief, life-style. We recognize that choices are actually made in the individual´s social, cultural and economic environment, but each individual should be recognized the right to make her or his choice. In this project the focus is on the individual and the identities – often several – that the individual her- or himself recognizes. We can also draw another distinction: identity as something discussed as a concept on theoretical levels, or as something measured by asking people about their attitudes and values.

Second, we regard a society as including state institutions: government, parliament, regional and local parliaments or councils, administrative and other public agencies on national, regional and local level. And also as including a civil society. Here voluntary associations and organisations – cultural, religious, charitable, human rights, social service, etc. – live and act.

Third, secularism can refer to the entire society, to the state or to the civil society. The French talk about laïcité when defining the state as neutral to religious and non-religious belief systems, a definition which is fairly clear – in principle. When other countries call their institutions secular, that notion is often more vague even if the idea is similar to “l´état laïque” and even if arguments and historical and cultural frameworks are different.

Secular institutions is a necessary condition for a common European civic identity

As far as civic identities are concerned, their existence is, at every possible level, a matter of comparison. We think that a common European civic identity should be recognizable if European liberal democracies were compared to parts of the world that have more authoritarian and less individualistic customs, traditions and institutions. At least from this point of view, some kind of common European identity already exists to some extent. Maybe such an identity can be further promoted. We found that a necessary condition for such an identity is a secular state within a society where the civil part of the society (civil society) can have secular or non-secular (religious) ingredients.

Eight frequent misunderstandings about secularism and secular institutions

We identified a number of misunderstandings about the meaning of secularism and of a secular state. In particular we found the following.

1. It is often claimed that Europe has become secular. This obviously depends on what we mean with “secular”. Established churches have certainly lost much of their traditional strength. State institutions in some countries have become more secular – and in others they have become more clerical due to successful lobbying even if the society was moving in the opposite direction – but whether civil society has really become everywhere more secular is doubtful. Maybe religion has for some decades not been so visible as today but whether religion has ever been in practice marginalised is questionable.

2. Populist politicians and superficial media reporting often seem to suggest that identities of individuals are and should be one-dimensional and based on ethnicity or religion – “you are a Christian, you are a Muslim”. This implies a view of identity as something attributed to individuals from above, for example from families, communities or religious organizations and in that way collective: it implies a necessary, or at least expected, coincidence, between the individual and the collective, cultural and/or religious, identity. For liberals this is not acceptable. Identities are, for the most important and significant part, individual, chosen by individuals themselves, and not one-dimensional. In the liberal world an individual can say that she/he is a European, a professional, a Muslim, a golfer and a liberal.

3. It is also claimed that identities are learnt in and given by the communities the individual happens to grow up in. For liberals identity is something you can choose to leave or go into.
There is room, among others components of individual identities, for a common European civic identity: it is made of the principles and values that provide a common framework of freedom in the public European sphere, hopefully experienced by most citizens as a precious good to be enhanced and preserved, that becomes at the same time a part of their own heritage and identity and the guarantee for the respect of all the other several parts of everybody’s own multi-folded personal identity.

4. It is claimed that secular states are void of values and norms. This is wrong – states have to stand for human rights and values that are neutral to different religious interpretations and values and norms.

5. It is claimed that states (state institutions) should recognize religious movements, enter into dialogue with them and foster them. This would be counterproductive to any form of social cohesion and common identity as it favours certain movements in the civil society to the detriment of others and creates divisions in the society.

6. It is claimed that secular institutions imply that religion has to be limited to the private, individual sphere. This is not true as a secular state is compatible with a civil society where religious and other voluntary organisations can act freely.

7. It is claimed that inter-religious dialogue is needed in Europe and that the state should take part in such dialogue. For liberals inter-religious dialogue is fine but should take place in the civil society without state participation which would mean recognizing some movements and not others.

8. It is claimed that privatization of religion means that religion is put outside public space, outside the space where societal and political matters are discussed. This is not true as the civil society is the proper arena for developing policies where voluntary organizations also meet political parties. Religious arguments should not enter state institutions like government, parliament, ministries, administration.

Policy implications for liberals and liberal parties

Taking steps in the direction of separation of state and churches (religion) is necessary also in order to promote a European common civic identity.
This has in our opinion some important policy implications.
- Non discrimination on religious ground: this also implies that public institutions should never make assumptions on any individual’s religious belief.
- Neutrality to all belief and non-belief systems in public services.
- No financial privileges in reason of the religious character of private bodies, institutions, groups and associations. Religious and non-religious cultural, philosophical, charitable, non-profit bodies should be treated equally.
- Non-confessional education systems where education to become a citizen is of critical importance in our increasingly pluralistic societies.
- Respect for every kind of individual choice in the citizens’ own private lives and life-styles: rejection of any claim to provide or deny public benefits for those that do or do not comply with behaviours consistent with religious obligations.
- Freedom of expression also in the domain of religion.
- Rejection of any claim to restrict the freedom of scientific research on the basis of religious or religiously grounded reasons.