Final Report Summary - PLUREL (Pluralism and Religious Freedom in Orthodox Countries in Europe)
Pluralism and Religious Freedom in Majority Orthodox Countries (PLUREL)
The PLUREL project was designed in response to two particular realities: first, the prominence of limitations to religious freedoms in majority Orthodox contexts, as evident in disproportionately high number of religious freedoms convictions of majority Orthodox states in the European Court of Human Rights, and second, a body of social science literature questioning the relationship between Orthodoxy and pluralism and, in some cases, suggesting an inherent contradiction between the two.
PLUREL sought to generate knowledge of the situation on the ground in four majority Orthodox countries (Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Russia) in terms of attitudes and practices of the majority vis-a-vis religious minorities and the experiences of religious minority groups within this context and, on based on a comparative analysis of the latter, to provide insight into the factors influencing trends in protection or violation of religious freedoms in Orthodox contexts. Further project aims included to propose potential resolutions of problem areas through targeted reforms at the national and European level; to comment on the balance between the principles of subsidiarity and of pluralism as applicable to Orthodox contexts; and to contribute to theories of secularisation with empirically-based insights on the relationship between Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and democracy and pluralism, on the other.
The case study selection reflects an intention to include old and new and non-members of the EU; countries which experienced Communist regimes and which did not; and a range of levels of religiosity vs. secularity. The project entailed a study of secondary literature about the historical development of the relationship between religion and national identity in each case, and of religion-state relations in each case, as well as fieldwork conducted in the capital city of each country in the study (with the exception of the Romanian case, where interviews were also conducted in Oradea). In turn, the fieldwork consisted of in-depth semi-structured interviews with representatives of religious minority groups; representatives of the Orthodox Church; representatives of state organs dealing with ‘religious affairs’; and representatives of NGOs dealing with religious freedom issues and lawyers handling religious freedom cases. Between 25-30 interviews were conducted in each country case, in November of 2010 in Romania, in December of 2010 in Bulgaria, in November of 2012 in Russia and in January-February 2013 in Greece (this timeframe includes a maternity break in the middle of the project).
Besides offering a vibrant picture of current grassroots developments in the domain of religious pluralism, in-depth interviews offered insight into the deeper mentalities, perceptions and perspectives of people in positions of power (in each of the four aforementioned categories), and to their broader objectives – what do they hope to achieve? These perspectives, mentalities etc. have value independent of the actual facts and realities on the ground: together they offer a picture of pluralism, or lack thereof, internalised by the representatives of various stakeholder groups.
One of the most conspicuous findings of the project is the near absence of Orthodoxy per se, in terms of theology or dogma, as a factor related to limitations to religious freedoms in minority contexts. The Orthodox Church, however, emerges in the research results as an active factor mainly in three of the four cases (least of all in the Bulgarian case), and always mediated by a second factor: a ‘strong’, positive (not in normative terms), relationship between religion and national identity. In fact, the resilient, highly exploitable and emotive close relationship between religion and national identity is the only common denominator in all four cases, and present as a factor in most, if not all, limitations to religious freedoms cited by representatives of religious minority groups. Thus ‘the Orthodox factor’, as it appears in these country cases, entails mainly a combination of the relationship between religion and national identity, on the one hand, and church-state relations, on the other, in limiting religious freedoms of religious minority groups in order to protect and preserve privileges of the majority Orthodox Church – all of which, though, is mediated through electoral politics (in other words, spoken, understood and/or assumed electoral weight of the Orthodox Church influencing politicians’ catering to the wishes of some of its hierarchs). It should also be noted that in all four cases there were significant divisions within the Orthodox Church hierarchies (in the Bulgarian case, the reference here is to the church led until his death in November of 2012 by Patriarch Maxim) in terms of attitudes and actions related to religious minority groups.
Other prominent factors behind limitations to religious freedoms include:
- the particular conditions of transition to democracy from Communist regimes (as applicable): the extent, and timing, of government interference in internal religious affairs, as well as the process and timing of the development of new laws regulating religious groups (in 1997 in Russia, 2002 in Bulgaria, and 2006 in Romania) carry continued repercussions in terms of religious freedoms in each case today
- the role of agency and, most prominently, that of civil servants in cities and towns outside the capital city, where societal hostility towards religious minority groups tends to be greater (in turn, a factor mediated in the three post-communist cases by mass media negative treatment of, if not major campaigns against, certain religious minority groups)
The research yielded a wealth of material, the analysis of which is ongoing, and the theoretical conclusions to be drawn from it are many. One approach taken by the researcher thus far concerns contemporary developments and debates on established religion and the question of whether there is any room for it in liberal democracies in the present period, where religious plurality is a given in increasingly more country contexts. The voices of the project’s interviewees could be usefully injected into current debates on the extent to which regimes with established or significantly privileged religions are compatible with the protection of religious freedom and the promotion of pluralism. More specifically, these voices weigh in the direction of inevitability of an end to privileged status for majority religions, if a state of true equality and freedom is to be achieved for citizens of all faiths, particularly because so many of the limitations faced by religious minority groups are linked to symbolic, in theory, but influential, in practice, ‘special’ relationships of majority churches to states. All of the above relates directly to the question of the extent to which pluralism, in the normative sense of the term, requires even-handedness of the state towards all religious groups. The results of this research will contribute to discussions of the latter through future publications (one planned book and a series of journal articles).
The research results will also contribute to discussions of the tension between subsidiarity and pluralism, specifically in the context of the European Court of Human Rights, through discussion of the Margin of Appreciation in relation to national identity concerns of majority Orthodox states, insofar as the latter carry links to religion. There are clear policy implications for the European Court of Human Rights, but also generalisable to every aspect of the European unification project in which subsidiarity plays a significant role. Regarding theories of secularisation and the place of Orthodoxy within these, the researcher has published one journal article (listed in this report), and plans another which will engage the interview material more directly.
Such and other project results will be of interest to policy makers handling matters to do with religion and with secularism; NGOs working on issues of human rights, religious freedom, and religion-state relations; and religious and secular groups in dialogue with the European Union through Article 17 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Effie Fokas, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, esfokas@gmail.com
The PLUREL project was designed in response to two particular realities: first, the prominence of limitations to religious freedoms in majority Orthodox contexts, as evident in disproportionately high number of religious freedoms convictions of majority Orthodox states in the European Court of Human Rights, and second, a body of social science literature questioning the relationship between Orthodoxy and pluralism and, in some cases, suggesting an inherent contradiction between the two.
PLUREL sought to generate knowledge of the situation on the ground in four majority Orthodox countries (Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Russia) in terms of attitudes and practices of the majority vis-a-vis religious minorities and the experiences of religious minority groups within this context and, on based on a comparative analysis of the latter, to provide insight into the factors influencing trends in protection or violation of religious freedoms in Orthodox contexts. Further project aims included to propose potential resolutions of problem areas through targeted reforms at the national and European level; to comment on the balance between the principles of subsidiarity and of pluralism as applicable to Orthodox contexts; and to contribute to theories of secularisation with empirically-based insights on the relationship between Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and democracy and pluralism, on the other.
The case study selection reflects an intention to include old and new and non-members of the EU; countries which experienced Communist regimes and which did not; and a range of levels of religiosity vs. secularity. The project entailed a study of secondary literature about the historical development of the relationship between religion and national identity in each case, and of religion-state relations in each case, as well as fieldwork conducted in the capital city of each country in the study (with the exception of the Romanian case, where interviews were also conducted in Oradea). In turn, the fieldwork consisted of in-depth semi-structured interviews with representatives of religious minority groups; representatives of the Orthodox Church; representatives of state organs dealing with ‘religious affairs’; and representatives of NGOs dealing with religious freedom issues and lawyers handling religious freedom cases. Between 25-30 interviews were conducted in each country case, in November of 2010 in Romania, in December of 2010 in Bulgaria, in November of 2012 in Russia and in January-February 2013 in Greece (this timeframe includes a maternity break in the middle of the project).
Besides offering a vibrant picture of current grassroots developments in the domain of religious pluralism, in-depth interviews offered insight into the deeper mentalities, perceptions and perspectives of people in positions of power (in each of the four aforementioned categories), and to their broader objectives – what do they hope to achieve? These perspectives, mentalities etc. have value independent of the actual facts and realities on the ground: together they offer a picture of pluralism, or lack thereof, internalised by the representatives of various stakeholder groups.
One of the most conspicuous findings of the project is the near absence of Orthodoxy per se, in terms of theology or dogma, as a factor related to limitations to religious freedoms in minority contexts. The Orthodox Church, however, emerges in the research results as an active factor mainly in three of the four cases (least of all in the Bulgarian case), and always mediated by a second factor: a ‘strong’, positive (not in normative terms), relationship between religion and national identity. In fact, the resilient, highly exploitable and emotive close relationship between religion and national identity is the only common denominator in all four cases, and present as a factor in most, if not all, limitations to religious freedoms cited by representatives of religious minority groups. Thus ‘the Orthodox factor’, as it appears in these country cases, entails mainly a combination of the relationship between religion and national identity, on the one hand, and church-state relations, on the other, in limiting religious freedoms of religious minority groups in order to protect and preserve privileges of the majority Orthodox Church – all of which, though, is mediated through electoral politics (in other words, spoken, understood and/or assumed electoral weight of the Orthodox Church influencing politicians’ catering to the wishes of some of its hierarchs). It should also be noted that in all four cases there were significant divisions within the Orthodox Church hierarchies (in the Bulgarian case, the reference here is to the church led until his death in November of 2012 by Patriarch Maxim) in terms of attitudes and actions related to religious minority groups.
Other prominent factors behind limitations to religious freedoms include:
- the particular conditions of transition to democracy from Communist regimes (as applicable): the extent, and timing, of government interference in internal religious affairs, as well as the process and timing of the development of new laws regulating religious groups (in 1997 in Russia, 2002 in Bulgaria, and 2006 in Romania) carry continued repercussions in terms of religious freedoms in each case today
- the role of agency and, most prominently, that of civil servants in cities and towns outside the capital city, where societal hostility towards religious minority groups tends to be greater (in turn, a factor mediated in the three post-communist cases by mass media negative treatment of, if not major campaigns against, certain religious minority groups)
The research yielded a wealth of material, the analysis of which is ongoing, and the theoretical conclusions to be drawn from it are many. One approach taken by the researcher thus far concerns contemporary developments and debates on established religion and the question of whether there is any room for it in liberal democracies in the present period, where religious plurality is a given in increasingly more country contexts. The voices of the project’s interviewees could be usefully injected into current debates on the extent to which regimes with established or significantly privileged religions are compatible with the protection of religious freedom and the promotion of pluralism. More specifically, these voices weigh in the direction of inevitability of an end to privileged status for majority religions, if a state of true equality and freedom is to be achieved for citizens of all faiths, particularly because so many of the limitations faced by religious minority groups are linked to symbolic, in theory, but influential, in practice, ‘special’ relationships of majority churches to states. All of the above relates directly to the question of the extent to which pluralism, in the normative sense of the term, requires even-handedness of the state towards all religious groups. The results of this research will contribute to discussions of the latter through future publications (one planned book and a series of journal articles).
The research results will also contribute to discussions of the tension between subsidiarity and pluralism, specifically in the context of the European Court of Human Rights, through discussion of the Margin of Appreciation in relation to national identity concerns of majority Orthodox states, insofar as the latter carry links to religion. There are clear policy implications for the European Court of Human Rights, but also generalisable to every aspect of the European unification project in which subsidiarity plays a significant role. Regarding theories of secularisation and the place of Orthodoxy within these, the researcher has published one journal article (listed in this report), and plans another which will engage the interview material more directly.
Such and other project results will be of interest to policy makers handling matters to do with religion and with secularism; NGOs working on issues of human rights, religious freedom, and religion-state relations; and religious and secular groups in dialogue with the European Union through Article 17 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Effie Fokas, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, esfokas@gmail.com